Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 21

Lotsofinterviews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Per a UAA report today I noticed that WJBscribe renamed User:Lotsofinterviews last year, but per this it appears the user is still editing under their old username today. Any ideas how that happened? Thanks.  7  23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They may have forgotten that they changed their name, and mistakenly logged back in to their old account (old usernames are often re-created shortly after a name change). It's unusual that the password worked though. I can only assume the user must have re-created the account themselves. —Soap— 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When an account is moved, the old account gets deleted, but in its place is added redirects to the new account. That old name is available then for someone to create an account with. In this case, WJBscribe did the rename at 17:31, 25 August 2009, and then at 17:35, someone created a new Lotsofinterviews account. To guard against someone else creating an account with the old name and impersonating the user, we recommend to users that they recreate the old account themselves; which may be what happened here. In some cases we will block the old account name. No block of the old account was deemed necessary at the time by WJBscribe. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the account was autocreated, and is attached to the SUL, so this is probably an auto-recreate due to them still being logged into the SUL during the rename. Happens alot. Probably a bug report somewhere here. –xeno^talk 00:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) Thanks. Suggested course of action? Since we know this name violates WP:ORGNAME, should the account be blocked with autoblock disabled, or will that cause problems with the SUL? Or just leave a note for the old username telling them to use their new account (and reminding them of spam/coi rules)?  7  00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it indefinitely. It was a promotional only account. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this count as canvassing for a particular result in an RFA? I supported the RFA (which is due to close in a few hours), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As the talk page has 473 watchers, and the user full well knows this, I'd say "yes". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. It's his talk page. Arbcom elections have similar campaigns and I don't see the difference here. Besides, it could end up positive for the candidate. AD 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear canvassing. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, but I didn't see evidence that it had a major effect on the course of the RFA. A number of opposes and supports were added after the incident with no apparent connection to it. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear: are users forbidden to express their opinion on an RfA on their own usertalk page? Are they permitted to voice their opinions so long as their userpage has < n watchers, where n =... what, exactly? MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just expressing one's own opinion on one's own user talk page is not considered canvassing. If he had proceeded to post that same opinion on multiple other talk pages, that would be canvassing. This is very clearly not canvassing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding specifically to MastCell's point (despite the indenting), the correct place to express an opinion on an RFA is at the RFA page set up for that purpose. Expressing an opinion elsewhere risks skewing the results by drawing an unrepresentative sample of people to the RFA. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yebut - wasn't this editor only recently the subject of an ArbCase clarification which revolved around their use of their (well-watched) user-talk page to advocate certain edits by others, or suspicion thereof? Nothing in the recent ArbCom findings applies here, but it's a worrisome trend. Franamax (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. My opinion is that this is a clear case of canvassing for people to go and "say no" on that RFA (which has now closed). I appreciate that the canvassing came late in the day (only a few hours and a few comments before the close), so it had no appreciable effect, but it was still, in my opinion, an attempt to affect the result of the RFA. One way to find out would be to ask the editor in question why he made that edit and who he was addressing that edit to. There is also a clear difference between drawing people's attention to an RFA (sometimes acceptable depending on the context), and explicitly asking people to vote one way or the other (not acceptable, in my view).
• If you look at the history of the user talk page in question, there are a series of edits that are clearly addressed to a watching audience - which I see as a misuse of a user talk page. User talk pages should be for messages to the person whose page it is, or for short discussions that don't really fit anywhere else. User talk pages should not be a venue for centralised discussions best held elsewhere, and they should not be a place to make announcements to a group of users you know are watching your talk page. Finally, I disagree that there are not instances of opposes made to the RFA that likely appeared after the canvassing notice appeared on the user talk page. What I would do is look at the opposes that appeared after the notice was posted, and see whether those people normally vote in RFAs or not.
• To give another example of how a notice elsewhere draws people to a discussion: xeno notified the user of this discussion (thanks for doing that, xeno), and that could have prompted subsequent edits here by people watching that user talk page. That's nothing new, but the point I'm making here is that notices left on user talk pages, even your own user talk page, can act as notification to more people than just the user whose talk page it is. I think that WP:CANVASS should take that into account, if it doesn't already, but that would be a discussion for the talk page over there.
• As far as this matter goes, I would hope that the following happens: (1) Someone asks the editor why they made that edit and who they were talking to; (2) The distinction is made clear that the edit was not just drawing attention to the RFA, but was explicitly advocating opposition; (3) That bureaucrats say what they will do in future if a notice of this nature (or similar) appears elsewhere on-wiki at the start of an RFA (or point to previous discussions on this sort of thing).

Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to make my points clear. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Arbs to try to influence the opinions of the community in this manner. Please try not to engage in contentious advocacy of this nature while there is a chance that it hurts your office. I am not entirely serious, obviously. Hans Adler 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think attempting to stretch WP:CANVASS to a new level to stop users posting opinions on processes on their own talkpage simply so User:William M. Connolley can recieve another bash over the head is poor. You might not like it but I see nothing in the behavioral guideline that covers this and what is more the RfA was within 5 hours of closing and the statement, as I am fairly sure William knew, had no chance of making any difference. What is more I don't think advocating a position is technically wrong, canvassing is wrong but not advocating your own position, please point me to the page that says otherwise. (please don't point me to WP:Advocacy because that is unrelated to specifying what your own position is on a wikipedia process which is clearly allowed) Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I am allowed to comment here (life is too short to read all the small print) I am inclined to say that anyone who adds a user talk page to their watch list does so at their own risk, it is still a user talk page with allowed liberties. Canvassing is approaching other people with your views, whereas people who have watched your talkpage have already asked the question. Within some limits people are free to express their views on stuff and it is a bit counterproductive to try to deal with a symptom rather than the problem. The problem is a mismatch (demonstrated by the numbers of talk pages watchers) between the number of people in the community are either interested, amused or enjoy being outraged by WMC's opinions and the view that Winston Smith should have no voice (as it were). Why not credit the rest of us with enough sense to see opinions in context? I have never seen many people running around to support WMC mindlessly, half the time he is disagreed with. --BozMo talk 09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I moved from oppose to neutral in the RfA after a constructive discussion with Ling.Nut on his talkpage. There is no way any personal opinion WMC could have put on his talkpage would have changed me back to oppose. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding users from posting their reasonable opinions on their own talk pages is an idea that is so bad that I don't even know where to begin. May I suggest that you, Carcharoth, in the future run all public statements on-Wiki by me before making them? Use form X-15-666.1984, in triplicate, please. I promise that I will quickly process such requests and let you know, often within the same quarter, if the statement, made by an influential and well-watched member of the community, will potentially exercise undue undue influence on the mindless masses so as to lead to results not desirable for The Community, or whether it is harmless fluff that you are allowed to post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: About these "discussions best held elsewhere" — exactly where would you suggest when editors are restricted to their own talk pages, and you would further restrict what can be discussed there? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors restricted to their own talk pages should be addressing the reasons they were blocked. If someone who is blocked wants to comment at an RFA, they should get their priorities straight and first address the reasons why they were blocked. Once that is done, they would likely be unblocked, and then they could comment on the RFA. User talk pages are not a space for people to carry on participating in the encyclopedia while they are blocked, but that is exactly what happened here. If they don't accept the reason they were blocked, fine, appeal the block, or wait for the block to expire, but don't spend the period of time until the block expires trying to circumvent the block by addressing a talk page audience and attempting to influence the outcome of matters elsewhere, including an RFA they happen to spot and want to express an opinion on. Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? Anyway, I am busy now until Friday evening, but I hope that more bureaucrats will comment here than have done so far (I think two have commented so far, one retracting his earlier statement). My initial post here was a question asking the bureaucrats as a group whether this edit was canvassing, but typically the discussion has got out of control with people drawing incorrect comparison with ArbCom elections (a completely different kettle of fish to RFAs) and using ridicule and satire to divert attention from the real issues here. Put simply, I saw what I still see as blatant non-neutral canvassing related to an RFA, and I reported it here to the bureaucrats. I am still hopeful that the bureaucrats as a group will be prepared to give an answer to the questions I posed above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? - most likely, nobody would have given a hoot, and rightly so. I'll have to say, I'm appalled by this. What happened to I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration? Instead you go off on several long rants that have nothing to do with the outcome of the RfA, and all with speculating about the motives behind and appropriateness of another editors comments. Sorry, but that does not look like good faith to me. Your complaint is specious to begin with, and this is an inappropriate forum to discuss editor behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that CANVASSING isn't broken on a fair number RfA's is a joke. It is routinely broken, it is just that people do so a little more subtly than done here... how often do people goto somebody's page and make a post "about your !vote at X's RfA" or something along those lines. I would guess that somewhere between 10 and 20% of RfA's have at least one person making this type of post.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Carcharoth: This is very troubling. Your previous statement was that "[u]ser talk pages should be for messages to the person whose page it is, or for short discussions that don't really fit anywhere else", and not for "discussions best held elsewhere". And now you have said: "Editors restricted to their own talk pages should be addressing the reasons they were blocked." Which is to say that restricted editors are not allowed to say anything, any where, except to address the block. Which sure sounds like: if sent your room, you are not allowed to come out, nor allowed to do anything in your room, until you apologize. Now if that sounds like ridicule, well, is it perhaps because you have a ridiculous position?  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed out the option to just do nothing until the block expires. But really, imagine if every blocked user ignored the reasons for their block and continued to participate 'at a distance' in the dispute that got them blocked. I think the root of the problem is this concept that anything is allowed on user talk pages. That userspace (and its talk page) is a place where almost anything is allowed. That turns user talk space from a communication space into something much more akin to a quasi-public/private debating chamber, dragging discussions away from the truly public spaces into the more 'private' spaces, and what I'm saying is that this degrades the quality (or rather, the participation level) of discussions held in the places where it should matter - on article talk pages and projectspace talk pages. Just take a step back for a moment from the 'civil liberties' concept of user talk pages, and consider why Wikipedia has namespaces at all. The reason is to aid in organising the editing of the encyclopedia, and to funnel discussion to the correct places. When people decide they can discuss anything anywhere they want (including user talk space), that system starts to break down. It is not a question of an authoritarian attitude 'forbidding' things, but a plea for people to think about where they are posting and to use the right location, and to consider that if access to a particular place has been blocked, that the user talk page is not a substitute for that location. Anyway, this is getting far off-topic and is no longer a matter for this noticeboard. I'll possibly raise the issue (probably at WT:TALK and WT:BLOCK) at a later date. What would really help to bring this discussion to a close would be for a bureaucrat to step in and shut it down, as I've accepted, given the silence, that the bureaucrats as a group are unlikely to respond here (for reasons I'm not entirely clear on, as discussions of allegations of RFA canvassing would seem central to their remit, but I won't push the matter further). Carcharoth (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other ways you need to be given the hint, Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In case it is not clear to others, the above post by Ncmvocalist was a response to a post I made at his talk page asking him why he had cryptically posted in an unrelated venue (the ArbCom election talk pages - remember that it was others, not me, who brought up ArbCom election guides in the context of this discussion) referring to arbitrators making 'nonsensical' interpretations of WP:CANVASS. Despite saying above that I would leave this matter for now, I will be responding where people name me directly (e.g. Count Iblis and J. Johnson) as it would not be right to leave those questions unanswered. As for Ncmvocalist's point about 'nonsensical' interpretations, given the amount of discussion that has resulted, I'm satisfied that the matter is not as clear cut as he thinks, and that discussion was needed here as there seem to be differing opinions in the community on what is acceptable and what is not. Given that several more bureaucrats have now posted to this discussion, I have also struck the last bit of what I wrote above, and I apologise for the impatience I showed there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be advisable for Carcharoth, and other members of the wiki bureaucracy, to avoid imposing personal opinions on others just because of their (former) positions on Wikipedia. My post was actually in response to comments here, not those that were made on my talk. But seeing the post has been fragmented from my talk to here, Carcharoth, I will make a response to that here as well - you are indeed one of the users who has been directly or indirectly advocating for nonsensical interpretations of policy since the close of a particular case which AC confessed was an exceptional one. The agenda that has been pushed in this way is not what the wide Community wants; several reasonable people ('others') see it resembling a form of censorship and totalitarianism. That this isn't your exact intention misses the point, and frankly, when someone has still not gotten the point after all this discussion, I'm not inclined to make it a priority to test my patience (by trying to spoonfeed them). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would be more direct, and not tiptoe around the issue, it would be easier to discuss this with you. I have tried asking you on your talk page what you meant by certain cryptic pronouncements you have a tendency to make, but you have refused to reply that. As far as I can tell, when members of the "wiki bureaucracy" (as you put it) make statements you personally disagree with (or that you think need to be opposed 'on behalf of the community'), you then come out with veiled passive-aggressive advice ("It would be advisable"; "consider whether they can afford") for those people to stop making such statements. The impression I get is that you are trying to shut certain people out of the discussions because of the positions they hold, worrying that they will unduly influence the discussions. You may have a point (and I do agree to a certain extent), but you could state that much more civilly, and try and have an open and frank discussion about the degree to which members (and former members) of the "wiki bureaucracy" should feel constrained when participating in such discussions (i.e. find out what the opinion of the community is, not your own opinion). If you start such a discussion somewhere appropriate (i.e. not here), I will happily make a statement there, but it should be an open discussion, not one where you accuse me (and others) of imposing our personal opinions (for the record, I don't try and impose my opinions, I try and persuade people of the logic of my argument, but it is difficult to have a proper discussion when people tell you to stay out of the discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to test my patience beyond this response to the above. I think I've been personally civil to you for as long as I can remember, even here; I don't think it's reasonable to expect more unless you expect me to treat you as if you're a baby (but even that's unreasonable given the context of our interactions - Wikipedia). One can expect some sensitivity to concerns but each person has their own nature, and trying to change it is not always the best use of one's time (it is unrealistic to expect a leopard to change his spots just because a hyena demands it). As for my advice, I'm not the one who gains/loses (at most, my patience remains in tact), but I cannot say the same about others (or in the case of wiki-bureaucracy, their positions on Wikipedia). Whether you are willing or you refuse to take the advice, or if you're able or unable to understand comprehend it is your own problem. It's unreasonable to think I've told anyone to stay out when that's contrary to what it is I'm saying; I'm saying don't dictate (or pretend there is a consensus when there isn't) and don't try to silence. Personally, I think it's fine that you've made your proposal (because let's be frank; that's what it was always going to be, a proposal). Several people have provided their thoughts. All that's OK. The problem arises when instead of heeding the indications you were given, you keep pushing - and if history is anything to go by, this sort of pushing will continue until something stupid happens.

For the record, when you failed to persuade people through "the logic" of your argument previously, you've aggressively attempted to impose your opinion on others, even on protected pages, and other members of the "wiki bureaucracy" (as I put it) have engaged in similar (though much clearer) acts more recently in 2010. And then *surprise surprise* when the Community refuses to dance to those tunes. The fact is that wiki-bureaucracy is elected to do the Community's bidding, not to find ways to dictate how all of Wikipedia and its assets must operate (the assets being each of the good-faith users who spend their time and effort here). Unfortunately, it seems that few people see things very clearly once they've become vested into the wiki-buro political framework. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are linking to diffs from over two years ago (September 2008) and misrepresenting what happened there, and the diff that you described as 'don't try to silence' is not a post by me, but is a post you made about ArbCom election guides (I don't oppose the writing of such guides, and have at times considered writing one myself). As I've said to Hans elsewhere in this thread, I'm happy to continue this particular discussion elsewhere, but it really is not a matter for this noticeboard. Please, if you must respond to this, do so on my talk page or start a general discussion in the appropriate place and leave me a note. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you (C) have a rather involuted concept of "communication", which is why something that seems trivial, trite, and even nonsensical to others looms very large in your reckoning. Central to that concept seems to be your notion that some topics are improper for user talk pages, which smacks of censorship. This ought to be discussed; please advise if you have a more suitable venue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that I find most surprising about this is the mentions of totalitarianism and censorship. That wasn't my intention at all. The point I've been trying to make all along is that there is a time and a place for most edits, and many people (me included) post without thinking about that. I strongly believe that discussions fragmenting over different venues does degrade the overall quality of the discussion, and that polite attempts to consolidate discussions in the right place (something that Ncmvocalist among others does) is often needed. I also think that discussions take different directions depending on where they are held and who is present (that is human nature). Which is why discussions on user talk pages are worrying because groups can congregate around user talk pages and act like an echo chamber, aggravating existing problems if those discussions are seen as consensus forming ones. Maybe the real solution is to see user talk page discussions as just informal 'water cooler' type discussions, but not capable of forming consensus. Real consensus needs to be forged in the truly public fora of article talk pages and Wikipedia namespace talk pages. As for places to continue this discussion, I would suggest WT:USER. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a very dangerous precedence to restrict expression to improve the quality of the discussion, and in particular to restrict open discussion elsewhere to improve it in its "proper" venue. Somebody already mentioned free speech zones. Your premise is wrong - all people discussing in one place works better if there are maybe 10 or fewer people. If there are several million, that form of discussion is not even possible. "Let's forbid discussion of the Vietnam War in colleges. The proper place to discuss this is in Congress." "Sorry, letters to the editor are only printed in Pravda." But what is more, I think you are flailing now, with "discussions on user talk pages are worrying [...] if those discussions are seen as consensus forming ones". First, which discussion are you talking about? Let me repeat this, for emphasis: Which discussion are you talking about? Secondly, nobody has suggested that, say, a consensus at my user page would overthrown an existing RfA (or maybe suffice to recall an Arb ;-). Discussions outside of the well-defined venues for certain community processes certainly can help forming consensus, but they cannot, usually, be used to demonstrate consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, user talk space can be and is used as a 'water cooler' type space, but discussions there should be respectful of discussions held elsewhere and not unintentionally (or intentionally) usurp the purpose of other pages (e.g. a recent reference to a user talk page as 'lurk central' for a particular topic area). See also the comments about civil and courteous interactions. If something is being discussed in one place, it can be rude to start discussing it loudly and crassly in another venue. Discussions in different venues shouldn't be antagonistic, and if they are, some way to reconcile the discussions should take place before things get out of control. And, we can definitely agree on this: Discussions outside of the well-defined venues for certain community processes certainly can help forming consensus, but they cannot, usually, be used to demonstrate consensus. - I agree absolutely with that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) As an aside, I don't mind jokey comments about arbitrator recall, but please don't upset the new arbs next year with jokes like that... :-)

Now that's something I, too, can agree with: distinguishing the informal "water-cooler" discussions, at any convenient venue, whereby editors thrash out consensus, and the demonstration or documentation of consensus regarding some article (etc.), which should be in the proper venue. But my question still stands: if some issue can be discussed only at the "proper" venue, and some editor is banned from that venue (for reasons which seem rather petty, or for someone's arbitrary condition of "respectful"), then where can he speak? Lacking any alternative, that editor is effectively censored. (Do we need to get into the big issue of why censorship is bad?) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of resolution here. On the issue of whether the present incident was canvassing or not, it seems that a major consideration is actually whether comments by this editor constitute disruption ("drama"). As to whether an editor can express an opinion about an RfA on their own userpage, Carcharoth has said no, only on "the RFA page setup for that purpose". Carcharoth then extended his remarks to claim that "[u]ser talk pages should not be a venue for centralised discussions best held elsewhere...." At which point I asked just where that might be, when an editor is restricted to his own talk page. Some relevant aspects were discussed further below, but I have yet to see an answer to my question, or resolution of any of the issues that have been presented. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I believe Carcharoth's comments of this date below, reiterating his comments above, and in essence that "best held elsewhere" means not on Wikipedia, answers my question. As I said above, I find that answer very troubling, but discussion of the broader issue is probably more suitable elsewhere. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't really take my response there to be a response to what you asked above, nor should you take what any one individual says as gospel. What I would suggest is to let this thread fade out and be archived, to gather your thoughts, and then start a new thread here asking your questions to the bureaucrats or at the appropriate community discussion page. That is how change or consensus is gathered on Wikipedia, by starting discussions in the right place and demonstrating that a consensus exists for something. I may hold different opinions to you (though maybe not as different as you think), but the issues you have raised are important and deserve wider discussion. Remember, not that many people follow this noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Carcharoth a priori assumes that there exist a pro-William faction on Wikipedia who will oppose anyone who is a climate sceptic, even on issues where someone's opinion on climate change is not relevant. There isn't any evidence for this. In fact, there was an RFA for someone sceptical of global warming some time ago in which almost all of the editors active in the CC area voted in favor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen some mention of a "WMC faction". From the context I gathered it meant everyone that doesn't get their science from the WSJ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but my objection to this sort of post is a general one, regardless of who did the posting. It was the blatant campaigning aspect to the edit that drew my attention, and I would have reacted the same way if any other editor had made an edit like that to their user talk page. The complicating factors here were two fold: (1) The user was the subject of recent and ongoing arbitration matters; (2) The user was currently blocked and hence could only post to their talk page. I would have had no objections if the edit had been made as a civil oppose on the RFA page itself. But consider - if it had been made to the RFA page with the same wording "Just say no", that would either have been ignored, or prompted a storm of protest as people objected to such exhortations being used on an RFA (though actually, it is no more rude than phrases like super-dooper, strongest possible oppose). With the hindsight of several days discussion of this matter, I actually think the edit was in part designed to provoke a debate like this. Despite one editor calling my interpretation of WP:CANVASS 'nonsensical', I think the amount of debate around this edit shows that this is a debate that needed to happen. WMC just happened to be the editor whose page I was on at the time (due to my being engaged in discussion with him at the time on another matter). To answer Count Iblis's point directly, my assumption is not one of factionalism, but one of genuine puzzlement that WMC thinks that user talk pages can be used as a campaigning platform. The assumption I made was that WMC was campaigning for a particular result in that RFA. Clearly, most people will and do ignore him, but that doesn't make the campaigning behaviour any less egregious and blatant. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've seen votes like a simple "No" or "Oppose" or "Yes" or "Per the answers" in nearly every RfA I've seen. Sometimes they are challenged, often they are not. But nobody goes to RfB and complains about "inappropriate votes", and I don't think there has ever been an attempt to sanction users for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I would have had no objections if the opinion had been expressed at the RFA and discussed at the RFA. As at least one bureaucrat has said, users who are blocked need to accept that they are (temporarily) disenfranchised as a consequence of their conduct (or they should appeal the block). Getting frustrated because they are blocked and using their talk page as a way to participate 'at a distance', is (in my view) not acceptable. If you disagree, I would suggest asking the bureaucrats for clarification on whether blocked users can participate in or should be attempting to influence RFAs while blocked - I don't think it is completely clear-cut as some think. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your communication in this thread has not been very effective so far:

• You opened the thread with the question whether a certain edit counts as canvassing.
• The phrase "so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration" looks very much like an attempt to unduly influence the bureaucrats reading your question. Here is a translation of your first post into plain language, assuming this interpetration: "Hey, an Arb here. For a technical reason I can't block that miscreant. Can you take out your rubber stamps please."
• It appears that the phrase was really a statement of intent not to push any specific interpretation.
• For some reason you couldn't keep that promise. You have been one of the most active editors in this discussion and eventually also found your way to the follow-up discussion at WT:Canvassing#Possible canvassing. You are arguing several rather strange and, AFAIK unprecedented ways of applying WP:Canvassing, including one in which it is relevant whether a user is blocked or not, even though blocks are mentioned in WP:Canvassing only in the context of blocking users for canvassing.
• It is now becoming clear that it's really about finding some way of justifying your intuition that WMC's post was sanctionable. It doesn't actually have to be via explicit rules such as WP:Canvassing. It's also fine to rephrase the situation in a biased way ("whether blocked users can participate in or should be attempting to influence RFAs while blocked") that hides at least three key uncertainties (whether this was an attempt to influence the RFA or just venting; whether this had a chance to influence the RFA; whether the number of talk page watchers can be held against a user) and hope that that's enough for the bureaucrats to come to a decision you like.
• All of this appears to me to be more consistent with the behaviour of a disappointed block shopper than with someone who asked a question in good faith in order to learn the answer.

Understanding the weight of appearances against you might make it easier for you to understand the opposition you are getting. Hans Adler 11:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I really don't like your tone. Carcharoth is one of the kindest, most good-faith assuming editors I've met on Wikipedia. Just because they are perhaps in the minority in the conversation does not mean they are doing something wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 11:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either when I have to point out such things. Carcharoth is clearly involved here to the point that he didn't feel it appropriate to block WMC himself. Now he is pushing for changes that would bring Wikipedia closer to a totalitarian system so that the edit he didn't like will be illegal in the future, and maybe even for retroactive application. I can live with such behaviour from some kid who is not being taken seriously, but from an Arb it is disruptive.

My impressions of Carcharoth in the past were mixed but mostly positive. I cannot remember any specific details either positive or negative. My post above was based almost entirely on his behaviour in this incident, but also informed by his pushing a hard line in an earlier CC-related discussion, which went far beyond the wording of the topic ban decision. I am under the impression that Carcharoth is having trouble with the concept that if you want to restrict someone's actions you must communicate these restrictions clearly and unambiguously. Hans Adler 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth and I passed RFA the same week. You might say (s)he's my good hand sock.  :-) In any event, it's a heavy accusation to say somebody has been block shopping. That would be an odd thing for Carcharoth to do since (s)he's never blocked anybody for real.[1] I suspect that Carcharoth is trying to identify an objectionable behavior and convince the person to stop, not to get them blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Arbcom says there is too much polarisation in the CC area. That's true. What Arbcom doesn't understand is that this polarisation is between three parties, one of them being a heavy-handed Arbcom itself. Arbcom's power comes almost exclusively from its influence on the community. The 2008 Arbcom completely ignored the limits of its power and overplayed its hand, resulting in a huge crisis. The 2009 and 2010 Arbcoms have been much better overall, but their approach to the CC case was a gamble that didn't work out because WMC is not cooperating and they have neither the power nor the moral authority to force him to or remove him from the project. As a result we now have power games between some Arbcom members and WMC and some of his friends. Arbcom has lost its moral authority in the CC case, and consequently its power, by blaming the scientists and established content builders for the polarisation that is being carried into the project by bloggers and sock puppets and enabled by a few established social networkers. Having myself had disputes with WMC in the past, I can see how one can misidentify him as the core problem, so it was an easy mistake to make. But now it's really time for Arbcom to understand what's going on and correct its course. Instead it is exacerbating the situation by getting more and more draconian.

An approximation to the situation as a family metaphor: In a fight between two children the parents did not notice how the youngest brother is systematically needling the eldest, but did see the eldest's overreactions. So they punished both "equally" in a way that hurts primarily the eldest. Many of the children are outraged now, and the father is trying to make up for the loss of authority by handing out harder and harder punishments which he cannot enforce, without discussing them with the mother.

An Arb should simply not be wikilawyering about application of a clear guideline in this way. It's unbecoming. Hans Adler 16:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a red herring. What is under discussion here is a non-neutral posting to a user's talk page that ran afoul of the canvassing guideline. That being said, no one here has suggested WMC should be sanctioned for the posting and I do not see one forthcoming. BN is not an appropriate place to revisit the CC case, or discuss how it was handled. I think that this thread has outlived its usefulness. –xeno^talk 17:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you Xeno. Given that you've said BN is not an appropriate place to revisit the CC case, I will pass over those aspects of what Hans said in silence. What I will say (about the other points Hans made) is that Jehochman sums this up better than I could have done: when starting this thread, I was pointing to what I thought was an objectionable behavior and asking the bureaucrats what they thought (and what they see as current community consensus on such matters). My subsequent comments were attempts to explain and clarify my position (in the face of a rather strong reaction). I was not shopping for a block, but seeking clarification about the matter. In particular, I object strongly to Hans characterising my initial post in this thread as being a post in my role as an arbitrator. It should have been clear from the initial post that I was posting here as an editor who participated in the RFA, not as an arbitrator. I'm really going to try and drop this now (as the discussions are producing more heat than light), but I would hope that I've handled myself with more restraint than Stephan and Hans did here (edit summary: 'appalled') and here (edit summary: 'disgusting'). I dislike the assumptions of bad faith made, and would ask that Hans in particular take a moment to calmly read all ten (eleven) now of my posts and try not to assume the worst (for example, where did I come across as acting like an arbitrator rather than an editor?) and to try and understand what I've been saying. If Hans (and others) still have concerns, I will be happy to briefly discuss things at my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When an arbitrator speaks about a policy matter on which he or she has recently decided as an arbitrator, it's reasonable to assume that he or she is speaking as an arbitrator. Given that this case was very recently decided and is still "hot" in terms of clarifications, amendments, and the like it would have been helpful for you to have stated more explicitly that you were not speaking as an arbitrator. It's a bit unfair to take Hans and Stephan to task for not parsing the indirect indications that you weren't wearing your arb hat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I hope it has been made clear now. It is unfortunate that because others raise the arb-hat issue (see points made by Ncmvocalist elsewhere) that I've had to respond to that here. As I said, a discussion (for the benefit of incoming arbs next year and the arbs that remain on the committee) to clarify the extent to which arbs are able to meaningfully participate in community discussions (even saying you have taken off the arb hat to participate in or start discussions doesn't always help), would be useful, but as I said to Ncmvocalist, that should be discussed elsewhere. I have a fair amount of thoughts on the matter that I hope I would be allowed to add. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless arbs communicate they are commenting in an arb-role, it is well assumed that they are simply commenting as editors. If someone assumes otherwise, it's their fault, not an arbitrator's. And if there're editors who believe that arbs should be limiting their comments on other forums because they are arbitrators, then such editors need to get a policy/guideline passed through consensus before enforcing such a proposition. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick dip through some talk pages shows that this problem is much worse than any of us feared. For example User:Antandrus, who will be familiar to many of you as a highly disruptive editor, uses his talk page to tell Ling.Nut If people can't see how someone like you would be a benefit to the project with admin tools, I just shake my head in bafflement.[2] And User:SandyGeorgia, another notorious troublemaker, regularly posts her views on which Arbcom candidates deserve support. Carcharoth is right; editors must stop expressing their sentiments on these and other policy matters anywhere but on the page expressly intended for this purpose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a little-publicised tactic (cf. WP:BEANS) is for much-watched editors to ostensibly support one candidate in the certain knowledge that those that hate them - and sadly there will always be some - will vote in the exact opposite direction. WP:Reverse canvassing represents a real danger to the Wikimodel and must be sought out and stamped upon.

But perhaps the most iniquitious example of all is when the much-watched editor says nothing at all. Naturally, as his watchers hang on his every word, they can divine his intentions and vote in droves in precisely the direction he wants. It's high time the applicable guideline "Canvassing by stealth" was promoted to policy so Action Can Be Taken.  Roger ^talk 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be really happy if people stopped publishing their ArbCom "guides". I think it is rude to talk about somebody behind their back. RFA comments belong on the RFA page. ArbCom comments belong on the designated question, answer and comment pages. Posting to one's own talk page (or user space) in order to stimulate one's friends to vote a certain way is not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never been wild about them either, especially as the candidates are supposed to just grin and bear it when people trot out inaccuracies or misconceptions.  Roger ^talk 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mere inaccuracies or misconceptions would be an improvement. Some of the guides are used to settle scores or grind axes by people hung up on particular conflicts or issues. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that too.  Roger ^talk 13:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it Arbcom election guides are part of the process e.g. User:Juliancolton/Arb and actually included in the template Template:ACE 2009 guides, we are encouraged to go along and see what our favourite user of the moment thinks about the candidates. Whether you think it is rude or not WMC posting his own opinion on his own talkpage is not something to be dealt with here in isolation and would need a major overhaul of policy. I am not against such an overhaul as I disliked the guides intensely. Maybe the best solution is to continue to allow this on users own pages but as soon as these user opinions become offically linked to that is where the problem really lies. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard occasional rumors that inaccuracies and misconceptions can occur in the real world too (tho I've never seen such Wiki-specific things as score settling or axe grinding occurring off wiki, of course). Like pretty much everything else, this is obviously an Important Problem^TM that new, more restrictive rules and more activist administrating will fix. I suggest we follow the lead of our betters in the real world, and create free speech zones to make sure these troublemakers expressing their opinions can't actually affect any change. Seeing how perfectly such an attitude has worked in the real world has restored my faith in our ability to create a Utopia here through the strict enforcement of more rules. Energizing the usually-reluctant admin corps to stick their noses in more places, and giving them the tools needed to warn, lecture, and block people for expressing their opinions anywhere but the "designated page for their opinion" is an excellent idea, and I don't see any possibility of it being misused as another tool to attack opponents and people whose opinions differ from our own. RFA is currently inhabited by a cross section of people that perfectly mirrors the editing community at large, and any comments by outsiders that could affect what goes on in that perfectly-run process is so obviously a bad idea that I won't waste all our time explaining why that is. If new people show up at RFA, people who don't usually participate, they might bring rudeness and foolishness to a currently polite and wise process.

Of course, technically I don't think WP:BN is the designated place to plot out the exact methods we're going to use to stifle discussion we don't approve of, so you're all blocked indefinitely until you learn to be good little Borg-lettes and do what you're told, where you're told to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but did either of you fill in their X-15-666.1984s? I certainly don't remember authorizing these statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you not checked your sekret mail? Please feel free to remove my comment if there any any errors on the form. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

JEH: I'm sorry that you'd be 'be really happy if people stopped publishing their ArbCom "guides". '... but I don't plan to stop. Mine has a talk page and I've engaged with candidates there, to mutual benefit, more than once, and I get a lot of positive feedback about it. The suggestion that the questions are somehow a replacement for guides really misses the mark, I'm afraid. We are apparently to be restricted to one question each, and the process for getting more generic ones into the overall list seems to have stalled. I will be presenting candidates with my entire list, as before, and they can choose to answer or not, as they like, which will form part of my evaluation process. I just may not be doing it in the "official place" since that apparently is verboten. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that your guide gets put up on the template and from my feel of wikipedia, as a much less experienced editor than you, I really think people wanting to get on in the world of wikipedia look at what you say. Therefore I feel that having a link to your "guide" on the election pages is really very inappropriate. I am not saying you posting your opinions is inappropriate, just the link to them. However, this is not the place to discuss this and is going off topic. Has this been discussed in detail elsewhere and if so where so we can move the discussion to the appropriate place. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(a) Lar, your guide is not so bad. Some of the others are. (b) What I'd like to see is one thing. What this process requires ought to be something else. To paraphrase Austin Powers, I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards, now is it? Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's start writing up Wikipedia:McCarthyism before it is too late. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Jehochman ^Talk 10:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a real danger that well meant efforts to bring in more rules based on the arguments by Carcharoth will lead to editors getting banned or blocked for purely procedural reasons. I have experienced this myself on PhysicsForums where they have very strict rules (this is because one needs to keep crancks out, but the way the apply the rules has been corrupted over the years). Many professors who used to contribute there have left. The problem is exactly analogous to McCarthyism. What happens is that while no one is in favor of booting people out for merely violating some rule on a technicality when no real disruption has happened, what you do get over time is gaming of such rules. Polarization and false impression of intent leading to distrust against which one cannot defend oneself, is inevitable. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you that people should not be blocked on nebulous basis. There is another response besides ignoring improper behavior: one can point out the problem and politely explain what would be better. For instance, "Please don't talk about the candidate here. Post your comments to the RFA page where the candidate can respond, and everybody else can see the conversation." Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those who would like to put a stop to these things, though I do not think it is possible. Too often, people use them to grind personal axes, under the cover of highly dubious interpretations of policy which they say that the candidate's in violation of.--23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

WP:McCarthyism is lacking in i18n. I propose WP:17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) ("because of 1,996 party members present, 1,108 were arrested, and about two thirds of those executed within three years"). Maybe we can completely wipe out all those old-wikipedians who got the encyclopedia to this stage. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: There is a discussion about the ArbCom election voter guides discussed above here. Please comment there. Skomorokh 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinions seems to be divided here given that this was a posting to the users' own talk page. Is this considered "sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion"? This is perhaps something that should be clarified to prevent future disagreement. In my opinion, the post tends towards the inappropriate side of the WP:CANVASS scale. Though transparent, it was clearly biased. Whether it addressed a partisan audience remains to be seen - William M. Connolley's talk page is watched by many. This makes it unclear whether it would be considered a 'limited posting' or a 'mass posting'. Had this occurred earlier in the discussion, actions might have been taken to ensure a representative sample at the RFA. I would advise the subject against further such postings. –xeno^talk 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"[The] talk page is watched by many. This makes it unclear whether it would be considered a 'limited posting' or a 'mass posting'." - do you mean to imply that it is now the responsibility of a user to check how many people watch a given page before posting on it? This is not remotely reasonable - I do not even know how to do this, although I'm fairly certain I can find out by looking at all the small print around a page. Moreover, I'm fairly certain that there is no reasonable way to find out how many people watched a page at a given time. The number of page watcher is ephemeral and non-obvious. The decision if something is a mass posting or not can reasonably only been determined by how often something is posted, and in particular in how many different venues it is posted, not on how many people may or may not become aware of it. I do not check all my watchlisted pages, much less all the individual edits to them. Does anybody? There is no slippery slope here, and there is no space for compromise on this particular issue. Posting something only once in one place is no mass posting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree. There may be many issues with a particular posting to a single solitary place, but "mass posting" is not among them. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the unresolved comment by xeno is off the mark. Polargeo (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean to imply the canvassing guideline might need to be clarified. Even if we set aside the issue of mass vs. limited, it is still a biased posting made with the intent to inform [Wikipedians] about a community discussion that trends towards the inappropriate side of the canvass guideline. Posting such as this should be discouraged; if users want to opine on an RFA they should do so on the RFA, and if they are blocked they should seek unblocking or accept that they are disenfranchised. –xeno^talk 15:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the canvassing guideline may need to be clarified, but certainly the other way round. If we start to regulate reasonable statements of opinions on user talk pages, and even try to infer intent, we are indeed on a slippery slope. Nobody is forced to read user talk pages. Those that do presumably are not mindless robots. I find the potential disruption from trying to separate allowed and forbidden discussions on user talk pages to be much MUCH MUCH larger than the admittedly abhorrent thought that maybe a user may be able to inform some others of his opinion on an issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think you seem to be discounting the fact that it is generally accepted to express your opinions on candidates for various posts on your own user page and if you wish to curtail this then this is a tightening of wikipedia rules that is unwelcome to many and should not be attempted by an "unresolved" summary on the BN noticeboard. Otherwise there is a whole can of worms you are openning up. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll move my comments from an "unresolved" tag to simple opinion in this section. See the below excerpts from the CANVASS guideline and explain why they do not apply to this instance. –xeno^talk 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "Canvassing on Wikipedia refers to the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."
2. "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate because it could serve to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore may be considered disruptive behaviour."
3. " Inappropriate notification: ... Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" .

Yes all statements taken out of context though. The context is when you post a message in multiple places or self selected forums it should comply with these rules. Not when you post your opinion on how people should vote on your own talkpage. If you start to restrict that you are talking about a major change in wikipedia policy. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

#1 is the very first sentence of the guideline - how can it be out of context? Canvassing can be inappropriate on any of the four scales. This one was inappropriate on at least one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that user talk pages are an appropriate place to canvass for a particular result on an RFA: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." –xeno^talk 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to wikilawyer about it I would pick you up on the word "sending", if you wish to apply "sending" to posting a message on your own userpage then I would suggest that goes against the generally accepted definition of canvassing and would need a redefinition across wikipedia. Whilst users are allowed to post election guides on their own userpages suggesting how to vote on arbcom candidates I don't think your argument has a leg to stand on. Polargeo (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WMC was just talking to himself, then? No, he was posting to "Anyone watching". As I understand it, arbcom election guides came about because of the way arbcom elections have been run, that's another can of worms altogether - but it doesn't trump the canvass guideline with respect to RFAs, which have an appropriate place to post your opinion about the candidate - on the RFA itself. It is my opinion that the post strayed into inappropriate canvassing, WT:CANVASS would be an appropriate venue to seek additional opinions. xeno^talk 17:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my opinion that your interpretation is badly wrong, or, alternatively, that the policy that you are interpreting is badly broken. However, I have requested input at WT:CANVASS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, just get rid of procedures requiring voting on Wikipedia. Only good arguments should count; decisions should be based on the presented arguments, how many times certain arguments are repeated should not be a factor. Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Can anyone name any process on Wikipedia (RfA, RfB, ArbCom election, RfC, Arbitration, AN/I, AfD, MfD, etc.) where side discussions about the process do not take place off the 'main' page from time to time, and where this isn't an accepted – or at least tolerated – practice? Editors will communicate with other editors about these processes, and the place where this communication often takes place is their own talk pages.

Wikipedia editors use their userspaces to express opinions about Wikipedia-related topics all the time. Those expressions range from broad statements of principles to gestures of support for various factions and policy standpoints (with or without the use of userboxes) to messages of endorsement and rejection for candidates for assorted Wikipedia functionary roles. I cannot reconcile Wikipedia's usual broad tolerance for free- and wide-ranging discussion with this sudden attempt to curtail the expression of an editor's opinion. Under this extraordinarly broad interpretation of WP:CANVASS, it would also constitute 'inappropriate canvassing' to visit the candidate's own talk page and declare "I don't think you're a good candidate for adminship, and I think the people reading this page should know that". For that matter, it would be inappropriate canvassing for a candidate to announce on his own talk page that he was running for adminship. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Would suggest this continue at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Possible canvassing. (Responding to your very last sentence: {{RfX-notice}} is a generally well-accepted method of advertising one's RFx at their user/talk pages and the only scale that might violate is audience.) –xeno^talk 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While not forbidden, using user talk pages (even your own) to opine about a candidate is clearly uncouth. Call it what you will, canvassing or not, but this sort of chatter amounts to gossip and creates a petty atmosphere of cattiness that is in serious opposition to the fourth pillar: Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner.

Just as Carcharoth said, "the correct place to express an opinion on an RFA is at the RFA page set up for that purpose." The proper place for discussion about a candidate is on the candidate's candidacy page. To me, this is not a question of policy, it is a question of civility. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If somebody must discuss a candidate on their talk page, the should invite the candidate to join the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 10:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I just commented at WT:CANVASS:

I think that in general, this should be allowed. And to not be considered canvassing. After all, we do allow the person up for RfA to note it on their own userpages/talk pages.

That said, this all presumes WP:AGF of the users in question.

Thinking about this specific case: This would seem to be a blocked user apparently using recent events (which involved the said user to be sanctioned by the community/arbcomm) which may have made their talk page more watched. Which to me sounds like a continued attempt at disruption. And if it is determined to be so, would warrant further appropriate sanction (such as losing the ability to edit one's user pages). The issue may be moot, now, of course. (The RfA is closed.) But there is always the future to consider.

So if this is indeed intended disruption by a currently blocked user (a seeming attempt at something akin to meatpuppetry), what is suggested for how we should proceed forward? (Note: As far as I recall, I've personally had no contact with WMC. Though the name seems familiar. I'm still playing catchup trying to read all the history.) - jc37 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And as I asked Carcharoth: if one is not allowed to comment at the "the correct place", where is one allowed to comment? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to pre-suppose that one is allowed to comment in the first place J Johnson, which is, of course, not the case. Pedro :  Chat  23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

While I think the whole "what if one is blocked" is a bit of a red herring, the only answer I can give to Pedro is: Yes one is. Yes one is. Yes one is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Being blocked is what makes this an issue. (And WP:AGF has seemingly been used up at least somewhat for this editor, from what I've been reading.) Otherwise, I would think it would fall under the typical latitude we give editors in userspace. - jc37 23:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would clearly treat blocked users lower in their rights access than I would treat non-blocked ips. In that tone, if ips cannot vote (or comment) in RfAs, so should the treatment be to blocked users. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  IPs permitted to comment in RfAs; it's explicitly allowed in the instructions at the top of the page. IP contributions to RfA discussions are generally subject to significantly more scrutiny because – let's be honest – the only IPs that usually show up at WP:RfA are indefinitely-blocked or banned users, trolls, and vandals. Obviously that doesn't apply to this case; we're dealing with comments from a long-standing registered account, under his own signature, and not even on WP:RfA or its subpages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedro touches on the very issue that bothers me. I believe that any opinion, by any person should have some place where it can be expressed, else it is effectively censored. That is not to say that "anything goes", any where — we do have requirements and standards, especially regarding verification and BLP (at least on the public encyclopedia pages), and that is fine. And if someone is disruptive — if, say, they just have a personal style or "chemistry" that doesn't fit in — in some venue, then I see no problem with excluding them from that venue. But aside from specific and definite exclusions (e.g., pornograpy, copyvio, crying fire in a crowded theatre, etc.), there should be some place where it can be expressed. (Else Wikipedia becomes intolerant of opinion, which I believe is where people start becoming alarmed about "totalitarian".) Wherefore my question: if some editor (even a banned editor) cannot opine on his own talk page about the powers that be, or the character or quality of their work, then where can he opine? Are any of us allowed to question authority? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On the unlikely assumption that wasn't a rhetorical question, the answer is clearly no. To do so is "disruptive" and causes "dramah". Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To provide a possibly less cynical response than Malleus, there is a distinction that is usually drawn between site-banned editors and blocked editors (possibly J. Johnson was referring to topic-banned editors). It is fairly common for site-banned editors to be reverted on sight (not something I agree with 100%, but there is a long-standing custom there). About expressing opinions, I agree that editors should have somewhere to express their opinions, but it is possible to express opinions in a disruptive fashion, so things are never as clear as they seem. For more on the difference, see WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. As for temporarily blocked editors, the best thing to do (no, really) is to make notes somewhere and post their opinion after their block expires. It is rare that anything is so urgent that opinions need to be posted immediately. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"I believe that any opinion, by any person should have some place where it can be expressed, else it is effectively censored." - That's great. Me too. But not necessarily on wikipedia. And definitely not if you've been blocked. And especially not if one of the main reasons for the block is disruption. I honestly don't believe that we'd see this much leeway given to most other blocked individuals. This would be WP:RBI, and if drama, or talk page soapboxing continued, as it seemingly has. Turn off the editor's right to edit the talk page, and move along. We've seen that a zillion times. Why should this be any different? Right now all this all just looks like prolonged drama. Isn't this part of why these sanctions were handed down?

Someone really should take a second look at Wikipedia is not a battleground and for that matter, it's not a soapbox either.

Sorry to quote Mr. Wales, but "this is not why we're here"... - jc37 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  My apologies for not clarifying this earlier, but I did not (do not) mean to suggest any contravention of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I am fully in accord that user pages (even talk pages generally) should be "used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." (And, yes, I am referring to topic-banned editors.) The scope of my concern is in regards of internal Wikipedia matters and process. In this regard my view is that for any conceivable matter (and matters which are yet unconceived) possibly affecting Wikipedia there needs to some venuue for discussing it on Wikipedia. (Esp. in light of this apparent quasi-policy against "off-wiki communications".) Otherwise we have antecedent, self-imposed blocks on discussing what could be critical matters.

  What seems to be the core issue here is drama. "the unnecessary creation, prolongation, and/or spreading of conflict and strife." Now it might be well to discuss whether saying "just say no" constituted "unnecessary creation ... of conflict and strife" in this case. But I would ask to defer that question of the merits for a moment, and instead consider the broader question: is "just say no" now prohibited speech on Wikipedia? (In which case I am in trouble!) For sure, there may be places and circumstances where it is not appropriate, but is there any place where an editor can point to an Arbcomm discussion and then say those three words? Can we be banned for implicitly criticising a Wikipedia bureaucrat? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 P.S.: J.S. Mill's arguments for free-speech (in On Liberty) might be of interest to some of you in the current matter. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that Mill was not talking about an online encyclopedia when he wrote that - he was talking about a society. There is a tendency for people to import to Wikipedia the inalienable human rights they (should) have for free speech, when in reality Wikipedia should be seen as a place that is a means to an end (producing an encyclopedia), not an experiment in online rights, or online free speech, or producing a new type of online community. It is possible to build up a massive bureaucracy to manage things around here (and that is what has happened in some places here and there, though most of Wikipedia is still remarkably decentralised), but would you do that if producing a printed encyclopedia? If you go the route of a government (which Wikipedia doesn't have) or a judiciary (and ArbCom is really only a quasi-judiciary), you are moving further and further away from the founding principles of an encyclopedia-building project. At the end of the day, some of the freedoms generally associated with a society and a community are better expressed outside Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) You may want to take this to the talk page of WP:NOT.

  Your comments are thoughtful, but I think misapplied. In the first place, I am not coming from any notion of "inalienable human rights", "online rights", or any kind of individual "rights" or "freedoms". My basis is purely pragmatic, arising from a general consideration of whether certain behaviors (policies, etc.) tend to aid or deter the functioning and long-term survival of this organization, and particular consideration of this organization's ability to comprehend and respond to future challenges.

  Second, I do not see how you connect this topic to "massive bureaucracy" and "route of a government"; quite possibly you see a significance that I don't. And possibly you are unkind to Mr. Mill. Although his work has been taken as an argument for individual free-speech "rights", in fact the basis of his arguments against censorship is the benefit to society, and along the lines I have just mentioned. And I think we can all agree that Wikipedia, even though not mentioned by name, is a sort of "society and a community". So, no, I am not arguing for, or even about, any kind of freedom; I am exploring whether Wikipedia has the organizational flexibility to respond to challenges.

  Apropos of my previous comment (that the core issue here seems to be "drama", or the handling of strife), you might have seen a news item today that a Chinese man (Zhao Lianhai), who organized a support group for parents of the nearly 300,000 children sickened by melamine-tainted milk, was convicted for "inciting social disorder". This is exactly the kind of problem that Mill was concerned about, and that I am concerned about: progress is often disorderly, and suppressing disorderliness also tends to suppress progress (or even just holding in place!). Therefore my question: where else can the bureaucrats functionaries here be criticized if not on a user's talk page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've gotten lost along the way, but what do you mean "criticizing bureaucrats"? If we're still talking about the same thing, the post was made while the RFA was still live - prior to being closed (and it was closed as unsuccessful, to boot). –xeno^talk 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect J. Johnson means bureaucrats in the general sense, when the term more commonly used on Wikipedia (because 'bureaucrat' has been appropriated for a specific function) is functionaries. Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)   [Yes; thank you. —JJ]

(I'm giving up on threading lol)

Responding to the message of User:J. Johnson, posted 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the current common practice for that is to allow talk page usage unless it's used inappropriately or disruptively, at which point, the mailing list and email is available.

And note that I have often seen editors who are more than happy to post something for a blocked editor. (For example, Carcaroth posted something for WMC recently.)

But a blocked editor, especially one who is blocked due to disruption, probably shouldn't be given a venue in which to continue disruption. That just doesn't seem helpful to anyone.

If there is something constructive to note in a discussion, there are many ways to have that noted. And that happens often enough, I think. - jc37 21:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Many" ways? It is not yet clear to me that there is even one way for a topic-banned editor to comment. (As to the way suggested: how does a banned editor communicate a possibly pertinent comment to any other editor if he is not allowed to comment on the topic anywhere? Extra-wiki? That seems to be disparaged.) Now if the editor involved was truly and unarguably disruptive, sure, off with his head. But in the present case the editor made a three word comment, which I (and I think others) find rather innocuous. What concerns me is that criticizing authority ("functionaries"!), or even popular sentiment, is nearly always disruptive to some degree, and an absolute ban on "disruption" (or "drama") tends to be used to quell criticism. Now one way to deflect a charge of invidious censorship would be to show where this editor could have made that three-word comment. Failing that, I think a deeper exmination of the matter is warranted. But I am still hoping to find the "correct" venue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(Though the response above is for Jc37, the question of where a banned editor can respond is for Carcharoth. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC) )

I thought I had answered this above (see my post at 00:08, 4 November 2010). In most cases, the answer to your question is "nowhere on-wiki". People don't get banned or topic-banned for no reason. Many of those banned or topic-banned do post their opinions off-wiki, but the reason they have been banned or topic-banned is invariably because their contributions on-wiki to a particular area have become a net negative. If this doesn't answer your question, please ask the wider community for their opinions (this noticeboard, as I've said several times now, is not the place for a prolonged discussion of this nature, though some seem to want to prolong the discussion here, rather than relocate to a more correct venue). Start a discussion at WT:BAN and see what sort of responses you get about whether there should be "free speech zones" for banned or topic-banned editors to contribute their comments. As for the three-word comment in question, I said previously, and I'll say it again, if someone is not blocked, they can comment at WP:RFA, but while they are blocked, they cannot. If you want an exception to be made for people who are temporarily blocked (e.g. a month or less) to be able to enter WP:RFA comments (or have their comments transferred from their talk page to an RFA by a bureaucrat, for instance), the place to suggest that would be at WT:RFA. I doubt you will get much consensus for that, but you could try. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. And I don't like that answer ("nowhere on-wiki") better than I did the first time, and was not assured that you really wanted to stick with it. But that seems settled now, and I thank you for your comments. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood. If you are prepared to discuss this further, I'll continue at your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"the reason they have been banned or topic-banned is invariably because their contributions on-wiki to a particular area have become a net negative" - what I like here is the humbleness of this unqualified statement. It has something nicely Catholic about it. Does the infallibility only apply to unanimous ArbCom decisions, or does it devolve to individual Arbiters? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want ArbCom's opinions on something, ask the full committee, not individual arbitrators, and certainly not at this noticeboard or on individual talk pages (see Roger's comment below). Remember what I said about answers and questions being dependent on the venue? Anyway, we've troubled the bureaucrats long enough. I invited you and Hans earlier to continue this at my talk page if you want, so please feel free to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlvese may have retired and disappeared, but has anybody secured his name? I'd hate for a vandal to come along and start using a former arbcom/crat/admin's name.208.254.130.235 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a unified account, so it should be impossible to usurp the name like that. I just tried with the intention of creating the account then blocking it to prevent a vandal getting hold of it and it tells me it can't be done. I see your point, though, since at least 2 current ArbCom candidates have had similar experiences. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

^Yep. Unless a steward deletes the global account it can't be taken. –xeno^talk 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Avraham#Sorry to bring this up again. Although a local 'crat (or a steward) may rename an existing account into Rlevse. If that does happen, I'd expect a friendly e-mail from Arbcom and about a gazillion posts on ANI :) -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up regarding the current Rfa which is due for closure. Thanks. Jusdafax 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Though the task is listed as "overdue", I notice I could be jumping the gun by a few minutes; if so, my apologies. Jusdafax 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Arg, X! beat me to the close... However, yes, you jumped the gun on the "it's overdue" front; the close time is the exact moment that an RfA will get closed, merely the earliest time that it will be closed. Nothing bad can happen from it being open for another ten minutes (especially in an obvious pass situation like that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The rename user log shows that Llama man has been renamed to "Malcolm" but his contributions as "Llama man" still show in the page histories. Is there a way to fix this so they are also attributed to Malcolm? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not without a developer at this point. It's been almost 4 years. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The above edits show up under the old username because they were deleted when the rename took place and were subsequently undeleted. The RenameUser extension did not touch deleted edits until July 2007. Graham87 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've poked the devs about this. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently voluntarily resigned my admin rights here. I've quickly concluded that was a mistake. Per Wikipedia:Admin, "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrator status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat", I would be grateful if a 'crat could consider reinstating my admin rights. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know of no objection to this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about creating extra work. Adambro (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll send you the bill for all the time it took. I almost broke a sweat... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the result is fine, but didn't we agree to leave these open for more than 7 minutes?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This Conversation WP:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_19#Formal_consensus_for_24_hour_.22wait.22_period_for_resysopping led to this change.WP:Bureaucrats#Resysopping. The hard 24 hour rule wasn't accepted, but it was agreed to give time for multiple comments. Not 7 minutes.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That page says "#It is strongly recommended that you allow time for multiple bureaucrats to comment after the request was made before resysopping. This time may be lengthened or shortened according to bureaucrat discretion if new information arises or if it's clear that resysopping would be uncontroversial." When you have an Arbitrator saying that the resysopping would be uncontroversial, I think that's good enough. NW (Talk) 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's bad process. The arbitrator said he didn't know of any objection. And if after the extraordinarily time of say 10 minutes someone did know of an objection? As I said, I've no reason to think this admin is controversal, but the point of the discussion was, let's not be in a rush. There's no reason this couldn't have waited at least a few hours to be sure. The reason we had the discussion before was because in the past there's been cases where one of you crats had no idea it wasn't routine until after you'd already flipped the switch. We're probably ok this time, but if you keep short-cutting the process it's only a matter of time till one of you cause another incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The process is fine. There was no reason to leave this one open for an extended period of time as it was completely uncontroversial. As for previous cases, please point out instances where the switch was flipped and something bad came of it. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a dead issue so I'm not going to direct link out of respect to the once again former admin however archive 18 has the incident that lead to the discussion in archive 19. Again lets be clear. I don't consider "longer than 7 minutes" to be "extended". However if you have no intention to refrain from acting without recklessness, than that's on you, I've said what I have to say.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did the research in this case, and there was no recklessness. Your implication that there was is extremely rude and unfounded. Please refrain from such comments in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the process here, I'm content with the resysopping itself. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, just to be make sure there's no misunderstanding, my issue is solely with process.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also object to such speedy resopping, there is just no need for it and it removes any chance for objectors to comment and you haven't got the authority to remove it again if there was an objection that was upheld. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have never understood the hurry to re-grant tools. Waiting for 24 hours to at least give regular editors a chance to speak up just in case isn't hard to do. The admin will be able to cope with waiting. Seriously, I think that 24 hours should be an implemented guideline. Everytime it seems someone re-requests their admin tools, a discussion like this ensues and it needs to end with a firm guideline. AD 14:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As I was the one who did the resysopping this time, and as I looked into the issue carefully and so nothing which would prevent the returning of the bit, there is no issue here. The only concern people have is that the bit is not returned without being aware of any issues. That research was done in this case., and there is nothing anywhere that indicates there is or was a problem. The whole point of waiting is to make sure of that. If the research has been done, then waiting is pointless. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you do the research in under 7 minutes, or were you made aware of this request in another location.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No offence but your 7-minutes research probably wasn't sufficient. There may be issues you aren't aware of. Not looking at this particular case, but I'm thinking of the future. There is very much an issue with rushing re-adminning. AD 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did the research in about 7 minutes. It actually doesn't require a lot of effort given the type of issue which would cause concern. Searching in the usual places turned up absolutely nothing, and the history on his userpages also came up empty in regard to anything which would cause concern. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Then my concern stands as noted.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, although you don't support allowing a few hours for any objections to arise from contributors, others do. I don't see you being interested in that, but you should at least be aware that editors object to your speedy bureaucratic actions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm probably a much more controversial "re-admin" that Adambro was, but there was no drama about mine that I know of (I didn't quote policy in my request though). Adam is a good guy, absolutely trustworthy, and, well, this is all very silly. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Adambro. It's to do with rushing things. We don't rush anything else (other than, obviously, things like attack pages, and even they sometimes linger for hours). I think we need a firm guideline once and for all. AD 23:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something specific you can point to where a 'crat resysopped someone when they very obviously (or even slightly obviously) shouldn't have been resysopped, demanding that we wait a specific amount of time—when the research necessary can often be done much more quickly—is pointless and following process for process' sake. It serves no valid purpose. I don't know of even one instance where a bad resysopping has been done since I've been a 'crat, and the wait times have varied widely: from just a few minutes to several days. No one here has given any reason why Adambro shouldn't have been resysopped because there is no valid reason. There no reason to fix something that ain't broke. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement boiled down into three letters: IAR. bibliomaniac15 05:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to install a protection level that protects a page even from sysop actions? Doing this prevents wheel wars such as this and edit wars like this from occurring between sysops on such pages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples that are a bit more recent? Those are from 3=5 years ago. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the answer to the original question is no, short of having the developers write new code to implement an extension, which does not strike me as a priority. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, it's a simple configuration change, not a whole new extension. (X! · talk)  · @531  ·  11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We'd need to establish if there's community consensus for this change. I don't think it's a bad idea, per se, just not sure how it would work even if the community approved it. Presumably, by the time someone popped up and asked for help from a Crat and one of us actually saw it and responded, (remember there aren't that many of us active and we don't usually need to do things speedily), the wheelwar would probably be spiralling merrily, there'd be discussion streaming onto a heap of project pages and Arbcom would be rousing itself. Maybe there's a good answer to that comment, in which case, it's back to needing community consensus before asking the devs. --Dweller (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, admins are trusted not to wheelwar or edit war on protected pages, and if they do there is normally serious consequences. I don't see the point in creating a new layer of protection for the rare times it occurs. AD 13:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it would need community consensus. Personally it seems well outside the 'crat task' box. If the tool is needed, (of which I'm not convinced), it would seem a more natural fit to be in the hands of arbcom. Any dispute that turned into wheel-warring of that level would need to be handled by arbcom on an emergency priority anyway.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And I, rather symmetrically, tend to agree with you. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, this would be technically trivial to implement. I would be surprised, however, if there were community support for it. Happy‑melon 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to install a protection level that protects a page even from sysop actions? Possible, yes. Practical or necessary, no. All editors with admin powers are capable of dealing with such a situation. Unauthorized or inappropriate edits to protected articles should be reverted, and the editor who made the changes should be warned and (if the edits continue) potentially blocked. I see no reason to provide bureaucrats with more authority, especially in this case in which admins are fully capable of doing the job. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, giving bureaucrats an additional responsibility will only make it more difficult to promote anyone to bureaucrat. Not that I'm saying we need more - no opinion either way - but it's already hard enough. The ZOMG-they-can-protect-stuff-even-from-admins discussion on every RfB that would be sure to result would be...counter-productive, shall we say?  Frank  |  talk  17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to second Frank's comments. Considering the limited use it would have, making 'crat only protection which mean less 'crats in the future. As an aside, I sometimes see minor "wheel-warring" on T:ITN (usually one or two reverts at most) but even that is fairly rare. DC T•C 17:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the "boorekat kabal" would just LOOOOOOOVE moar pow3rz!! In all seriousness, though, I see no need for yet another hierarchical level of user here. If admins cannot behave, they can be blocked and their bits removed by ArbCom. I'd rather see a quicker Arbcom response (even if only on a temporary basis) to remove bits than adding another super-user. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think a similar thought. Instead of adding a crat-only protection, crats should have the ability to remove the admin-bit instead. The protection solution would not help if those admins decide to wheelwar on other pages, block people etc. - it would only address one kind of rogue-behavior and if we grant crats more powers, it should be powers that are an effective solution - i.e. any power to stop one or more admins who go rogue has stop any kind of mop-abuse, not only wheel-warring on a protected page. Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking could be re-discussed as an emergency-only measure, e.g. crats are granted the technical ability to remove the sysop-bit to prevent further disruption until ArbCom can decide about it. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If this was a needed function, the group with the user rights most similar (ie they can do things that admins cannot) is oversighters. They're also geared up for fast responses. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller. It would make more sense to add this as an oversight right. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with my fellow crats that while this is a well meaning idea, it really wouldn't be used that often and would create bad feelings between crats and non-crats. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the usual "OMG It's 2 MINUTES OVERDUE" threads, the RfA has been open for 17 hours. I'm about to head off, so I can't do it now, but some other crat should probably take care of it. (X! · talk)  · @958  ·  21:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

•   Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been needing closure for some 8 days now. Thanks in advance - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done MBisanz ^talk 11:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A legitimate user (User:Mathewignash) has asked that an impostor account (User:Matthewignash, note the extra "t") be renamed so as to avoid confusion. If anyone has a moment, could you weigh in? Thanks! TNXMan 17:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  Done MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all I noticed that this template is currently working at one of our open RfAs, but not the other. I presume there's a good reason for this - it might be helpful if we added that reason both the template page and as a hidden message around the rfatally box in the RfA boilerplate. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what is not working about it...looks ok to me on both? –xeno^talk 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird. It was showing me 0/0/0 on the Lear one (I checked three times), but now shows a tally. Did it kick in at half past the hour? --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tracing the templates leads to User talk:X!/Tally which indicates that it is, indeed, intended to update every 30 minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha... thanks. Is that worth including on the template page, and in the boilerplate? --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – Thanks for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A user has requested the username FidelityCastrated for their new account (not an existing user). They apparently use this username elsewhere (not WMF sites). There currently is a user with that name on enwiki, but they are blocked for a user name policy violation. Personally neither(fixed) I (nor OlEnglish) think this name actually violates the username policy, so I'd appreciate if someone could rename the current account so that the user can take this name. Everything should be fine for an usurp. Thanks, Prodego ^talk 07:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You think the username violates policy, so you want the current username moved so someone else can use a policy-violating username? I don't get it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

heh, fixed. Prodego ^talk 07:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha. So has a usurp request been filed? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am asking that FidelityCastrated be renamed to another name so that I can create a new account with that name by email for someone else. I can't request an usurp since there is no existing account to rename, and even then it would likely sit in a queue for days, whereas I can much more quickly get that user renamed by asking directly here. Which is useful since I have a limited amount of time, have already had the global account deleted, and was contacted on IRC by the user who wants the name and a real time response is desirable. The only thing I need done that I can't do is for someone to go here and click the button to rename. Prodego ^talk 07:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Renaming_users_under_sanctions --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we expect to see a 'crat chat before Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool is closed, since it's in the marginal territory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the judgment of the closing bureaucrat. If s/he feels it necessary, yes, otherwise no 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Avi; after four hours, I was wondering if y'all were all on strike :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called a life. :) (X! · talk)  · @934  ·  21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or meagre wages... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Or post-New Year's effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean we're all at the gym, Sandy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, just like me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm midway through converting my cellar to a personal gym (e.g. television, stereo, bar... oops, I meant cycling machine) but I'm still around. Just most RFAs seem to finish when I'm not about... Like this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been pre-occupied with other stuff as of late. But I've put in on my calendar to be around at 5:02pm Mountain on Sunday in the event that a 'crat chat happens. However, I believe I also have a dinner appointment around 6pm that evening... Useight (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, I guess the 9th is Saturday. Oops. Useight (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

With a few hours to go it does seem like this will be a little borderline. Wether a 'crat chat is needed I don't know - depends on the next few hours - but have a spine gents (and, well, at least one (inactive) lady) - just be bold. That's enough from me, before I get accused of partisanship -yet again!!! by the clueless. n.b. ammended my commentary at the RFA to reflect strong support, but with no disrespect to Lear's fool don't really give a toss about outcome. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, I can honestly say that I sincerely hope a 'crat shat is not needed.[3] :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it probably already qualified for typo-of-the-year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, I can honestly say that I didn't enter any commentary to attempt to influence the discussion: we do hope the 'crats among us have brains; they get to live with their choice, after all. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen to invoke the rarely used "time extension" for the RFA. The closing time has been extended by 3 days. I've provided a short statement here to explain my reasons. It's not particularly detailed, but I don't want my words to potentially affect the outcome of another person's RFA. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A wise move, but I'm sure you'll get beaten up for it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure that this was the best idea. Both sides have had 7 days to extend their opinions. Extending it further only makes this RfA more of a war of attrition - which side will give up first? There's nothing that extending will achieve except for making hell week a hell weekplus3days. This idea has already been shown by other areas of WP. Unless new info comes up, which has not happened here, extending a closing time does not change consensus. (X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you view it as a matter of "sides"; it doesn't seem like a particularly unpleasant RFA, and I don't see battlelines being drawn. I do see no consensus, as Biblio stated, and I view that through the prism under which I operate at FAC. I can't promote an article to featured status unless there is consensus, but I don't operate under a deadline. I have the option to wait it out, or restart the FAC if it becomes a complete jumble and wait for clear consensus to form. And if I goof, an article can be defeatured at WP:FAR-- not so easy with an RFA goof. IMO, Bibilio made the right call. Let's not add any drama by second-guessing the 'crat who had the cojones to do something; that's not in the candidate's best interest, and if there was disagreement, a 'crat chat could have been convened hours ago. Crats had a chance to speak up, so let's respect the one who made the call. A clear call is better than a marginal one on such an important matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RFAs are closed as "No consensus" all the time. This is silly. Townlake (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to X!) I can see where you come with that, but I don't believe consensus will be changed either. It'll simply be more visible. Although the RFA has its fair share of nitpicks and questionable behaviors, the amount of bickering is pretty low compared to the normal. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If consensus will not change, it should have been closed. (X! · talk)  · @153  ·  02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Another thought vis-a-vis the differences between FAC and RFA; I have the option to let FACs run longer during the holidays, when many people are away. I don't see how second-guessing the 'crat will be helpful to the final outcome, one way or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm just saying I was planning on closing it differently. (X! · talk)  · @184  ·  03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

X!, taking three edits to make one is *my* gig! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I took 4. :) (X! · talk)  · @206  ·  03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the intent is to get more views in Lear's Fool's RfA, would you mind it if I cross posted the links of this RfA to various community portals and forums? I don't really mind the RfA going either way on community consensus or lack of it, but if the RfA has been extended because "the addition of 3 supports and 1 oppose after the scheduled ending" proved there was still discussion left, then I'd appreciate it if we get the real community view on this RfA, whatever it might be. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be fair to most of the other candidates past – present, or future. That's my concern about this relisting. –MuZemike 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although we might want to consider adding the RfX-box to such noticeboards in future, to advertise all future RFAs a bit more prominently. As for the extension, I'm pretty surprised by it as well. I think it's not a bad idea, considering the holiday-season in many countries but I think at the end there should be a crat chat nevertheless. This is one of those examples where consensus might just exist and more eyes might be beneficial to the final decision. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to the varying opinions on what consensus could be in Lear's Fool's RfA, I've opened at crat chat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool/Bureaucrat discussion. (X! · talk)  · @0100  ·  01:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another strange support (there are a few) of another account that was registered in 2006 but didn't post 'til 2009 weighs in to support after the RFA closes. Ho-hum. Do 'ya think you mighta missed a key point in your summary of the 'crat cht, X! ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleriousandlost just explained he hit edit before I put the yellow box on. (X! · talk)  · @107  ·  01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It closed at 0:02 (after three extra days). You put it on hold at 1:07; that account voted at 1:25-- seriously. Anyway, I'm more interested in the number of strange and old accounts that supported, and an account like this that lay dormant from 2006 to 2009, as did Lear's Fool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole episode seems rather suspicious to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The obtuse will frame it as a "content contributors" vs. "non-content contributors" difference :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"The obtuse" appears to include the closing bureaucrat. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would request that, if the determination of the crat-chat is that I should be promoted, I not receive the userright until I make a further request here. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool/Bureaucrat discussion#Some commentary on some supports.  -- Lear's Fool 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the previous comment, for an explanation, see here.  -- Lear's Fool 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this is what Soviet elections must have been like. Lear's, you have my sympathy; you didn't ask for any of this. Townlake (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, Soviet elections were nothing compared to Nazi elections. [/thread win]. NW (Talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Soviets > Nazis. Let's not be hasty in deciding who won this discussion; a three-day waiting period has recently been implemented. Townlake (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you saying there are more Soviets than Nazis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's not too much trouble, could the bureaucrats promoting new admins please take a look if they are listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and remove the entry if necessary? As administrators automatically have access to AWB, they do not need to be explicitly listed on the checkpage. This will help keep the length of the list to a minimum. Thanks, Nakon 05:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my personal checklist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth having one of our bots check it 10 days after a nom is opened. It could then check to see if the admin bit was twiddled and remove someone from the list if it was. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to have a bot trawl the list for users who are admins and remove them on a monthly or quarterly basis. The list is already quite long anyway, I don't see that it's quite so important to remove them on promotion... –xeno^talk 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 5 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been replaced by the request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I requested desysopping about three months ago.[4] I was hoping that a bureaucrat could resysop me please. I believe I left in good standing, although I was involved with the Climate change arbitration case and some tangentially related matters when I let go of the tools. I could ask an Arbitrator to comment here on that if any bureaucrat wishes. NW (Talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, having an arb comment would eliminate the discussion that would no doubt arise otherwise. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No issues as far as I am concerned. Risker (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no issues either; his bit was never an issue. — Coren ^(talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No issues. SirFozzie (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

With the triple greenlight, I added the sysop bit back. Useight (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. NW (Talk) 01:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss a step? The tally isn't tallying(?) on the page. CTJF83 chat 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. –xeno^talk 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...is it normal for it to be some votes behind? CTJF83 chat 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It updates every half hour. –xeno^talk 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks much! CTJF83 chat 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AWBCPBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot

In my capacity as a BAG member, I've approved an adminbot that will maintain a single fully-protected page. The discussion was advertised at WT:RFA and the talk page of the aforementioned page and has been open for just under a week without any objections. The bot is operated by administrator Kingpin13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and will require the bot flag and administrator rights (set). –xeno^talk 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

•   Done Please don't forget to drop a line on Meta if and when the bot is retired/removed so the admin bit can be flipped. -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  Cheers. –xeno^talk 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some cases at CHU that are quite obviously not going to be done, whether it's because the request was withdrawn explicitly (see here for an example) or implicitly (by posting another request) or because it's not possible. It would be easy enough for clerks to close these (see my example above) but it would seem the bot won't archive the request unless it's closed by a bureaucrat (see this diff). Personally, I think that there shouldn't be a problem with clerks closing requests - as well, a list of "trusted" users could be maintained of non-crats who can close a request only as {{Not done}} to stop random users from closing things. Xeno and NihonJoe have both said they would have no problem with it, but as stated by NihonJoe there may be things to take care of before it can be done, and also, gaining consensus from multiple Bureaucrats would probably be a good idea before it's implemented. demize (t · c) 19:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It may make sense to just have the bot act on any 'notdone' - we haven't maintained or found a need for a formal list of clerks in recent times. –xeno^talk 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

But that would allow the abuse mentioned by Demize above. Maybe it could act only if the template is placed by anyone in a manually-assigned usergroup (reviewer, rollbacker, account creator, sysop etc.), since we can assume that those people are probably trusted enough not to misuse the bot's archiving. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That would work. Also, xeno, as far as I know I'm the only clerk active right now (:p), and that would mean that before I came around there was a period with none, so there wasn't really any use for a list. But if there were a list, it might attract more people to clerk (and they'd take away my job! :P). Either a list or any manually-assigned usergroup that requires a level of trust to assign would work, it's up to User:Chris G though. demize (t · c) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

On that note, I'm talking with the three bot operators whose bots clerk the CHU pages to see if we should consolidate it onto a single bot for simplicity, efficiency, consistency, and whatever other -cy's we might come up with. –xeno^talk 23:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some input from the bot writer/maintainer might be useful here too, I'll leave a note on his talkpage. demize (t · c) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've never particularly liked the requirement that the bot will only archive requests closed by a bureaucrat, however that is what VoABot did (the bot that archived before my bot replaced it) and the consensus at the time of approval seemed to be that the bot should follow that requirement. Anyway it would be fairly easy to remove that requirement or have a list of approved "clerks", it just depends on what you guys want. Also regarding consolidation, is there really a need or is that just looking for a problem that needs solving (on the other hand I'm not opposed to it, just as long as it's my bot that takes over ;) )? --Chris 03:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

re Consolidation: was just a thought; seemed inefficient to have 3 bots doing what could be done by 1, but otherwise the current setup has been working fine. –xeno^talk 04:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think a list of approved clerks would be the best idea, it would need to be a page editable by 'crats to work as well as it could though. That way, a 'crat can add users that have actively been helping and that show they understand the basic policy behind renaming. I think we should get input from NihonJoe at the least though, since he's the most active bureaucrat at CHUS. In the end, I think xeno and NihonJoe should agree on something, with the help of others who offer their input. demize (t · c) 04:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I just asked Anomie if AnomieBOT only acts on crat's dones/notdones. If it will act on anyone's, I'd say just let Chris G Bot 3 do the same. If we ever run into abuse, it can be dealt with at that time (the page is fairly well-watched, and there's a 12 and 36 hour gap for done and notdone (respectively) to be archived. Some relevant discussion on this subject: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6#Clerks at WP:CHU, Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#Trusting the clerks to mark notdone on blocked users, Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#Request for clarification. Note it seems Chris G bot already has a function to let people use notdone: User:Chris G Bot 3/trustedusers.js. –xeno^talk 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I total forgot about that. I knew we have had this discussion before. I implemented the page, but no one ever used it; it should still work though. --Chris 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as an update, AnomieBOT will also only act for 'crats. It could be set to read from the above-mentioned page if it became desirable. –xeno^talk 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in this thread I have always preferred that only bureaucrats tag requests as {{done}} or {{not done}}. I think if a request is made to a bureaucrat, the user is entitled to have a bureaucrat determine its outcome (for the same reason, I don't think non-admins should decline unblock requests). A rename request might be "withdrawn" due to incorrect advice by a clerk - which may not be picked up if the same clerk then tags it as {{not done}}. In general, I think I would spend at least as much (if not more) time reviewing and correcting taggings by clerks than just doing the tagging myself. If having the tags added by others won't save bureaucrat time, there's no real need for it. This is a non-urgent wiki process and, in this example, I hardly think a gap of a few hours counts as the bureaucrats having "all disappeared". A little patience please! That said, given than I now have little involvement in the process, it shouldn't be up to me. If those crats who now perform most renames would find it helpful for clerks to tag requests as {{done}} or {{not done}}, they can invite them to do so.
I am however strongly against the idea of appointing clerks. It seems to me something that goes completely against the ethos of a wiki and to be avoided where possible. Even if the role is expanded, I think anyone who wishes to act as a clerk can be free to do so. If someone's contributions to the page are tending to be unhelpful, it won't be long before a bureaucrat asks them to stop helping out. I don't think we should be creating new "positions". WJBscribe (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With similar reservations – and respect for the judgment of the bureaucrats who are currently most active – I also object to this idea. I gave a more detailed account of my reasons here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with WJB and AD's reasoning. I understand the urge to help, but many people seeking renames are inexperienced and adding more layers of templates and reviews with additional people involved probably won't help them. Also, it isn't like there is any backlog at CHU needing help. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with MBisanz; specifically, since there's no backlog it's probably just more straight forward for new and confused users if their requests are tagged by a bureaucrat. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see how it might become confusing with too many people doing things on the page, especially since there's no real backlog there. I'm fine keeping things status quo for now, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I say we call this issue resolved. If there is ever a need for clerks, then they can be added to that page (User:Chris G Bot 3/trustedusers.js), but the general consensus seems to be that there is currently no need and it would be confusing for clerks to mark requests done/not done. demize (t · c) 01:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say we don't appreciate all the hard work the clerks do - we do =) Cheers, –xeno^talk 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto what xeno wrote. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looie496 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

For your information, a request for recall of User:Looie496 has been initiated, if it passes then Looie496 may either voluntarily resign as an administrator, or alternatively run through a request for adminship. Please see User:Looie496/Recall for further details of the process, as well as the recall request itself. Administrators in good standing may support the recall at that page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This recall has succeeded according to the procedures that I established at my RFA. I therefore voluntarily resign my administrator status. Please let me know if anything more needs to be done here. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A steward needs to do that. You can make the request at m:Steward requests/Permissions to have your status changed. Or I can make the request for you. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Nakon initiated a request at m:SRP and the request was fulfilled. –xeno^talk 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I ran two CHUs just now and received the following error: (Cannot contact the database server: Unknown database 'eowikisource' (10.0.6.49)). Part of the CHUs worked. The contributions moved, but the former userpages remained, although the former accounts were deleted. The moves also have not shown up on the rename log. I have learned from #mediawiki that this error message was not isolated to CHUs. A project name was added to the db list a couple hours ago (eowikisource) that does not actually seem to exist anywhere. This list is used by a number of things including SUL. The project name has now been removed, and things should be back to normal. I am now going back to look closer at the CHUs I did to see if any global account particulars need to be addressed. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I got that error on one of the ones I did today, but they had no userpages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the error message gone now with new CHUs? Kingturtle = (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue should be resolved now. But any CHUs done during the eowikisource incident should be reviewed. If anyone received an eowikisource error message while performing a CHU, please review the case. User pages, talk pages and accounts on other wikis were not necessarily transferred. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Info about this incident is available here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-January/051382.html --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I had previously decided to email this request to avoid unnecessary comments, but thought against it as perhaps the community should be allowed to weigh in on this. I !voted oppose at GiantSnowman's RfA. Yet, I have seen with interest that in the past two days, the number of supporters is growing for GiantSnowman. When Cirt !voted oppose, there were 49 supporting and 32 opposing editors, in general. Currently, there are 59 supporting editors, and the number of opposing editors remains unchanged. At the danger of this being seen as crossing the line into bureaucrat territory, I still wished to request the closing bureaucrat that in case GiantSnowman's RfA, at the point of closing, is failing the mark minimally, the RfA be extended by a reasonable period, as the crats may determine. My apologies in advance if this is not the appropriate way to request this. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we should consider extending all RfAs to a week? --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Err? –xeno^talk 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Either this is hugely ironic or Dweller's forgotten to take his tablets... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's do make them all RFAs a week, just for the fun of it ... I'm sure Dweller hasn't forgotten his tablets, but I'm not so sure about Wifione :) Maybe over the next few hours, I'll figure out what Wifione is getting at. Right now, we have a clearly failing RFA and no rationale provided for extending it. Apparently it has something to do with Cirt, presumably the fact that many editors will go the opposite direction of Cirt on principle, but I have no clue what point Wifione is trying to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand the rationale for the original post. Sorry for being too ironic for clarity to be preserved. I was in a whimsical mood, for a change. <ahem> RfA is stressful enough for the candidate without extending the process. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And the weekly chocolate ration has been increased from 30g to 20g. Useight (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Only for extremely large values of 20g, though... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the particulars and motivations of this request, the idea that borderline or swinging RfAs ought generally be extended and re-advertised might be worth debating in light of the Lear's Fool case. Skomorokh 16:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lear's Fool RFA was borderline and consensus was unclear. What is unclear in this case (except this vague request)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was explicitly not addressing this particular case or RfAs that were not borderline. Best, Skomorokh 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, and a question-- when was the last time a borderline no-consensus RFA like Lear's Fool's appeared (I really don't know, but I suspect they are quite rare). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Borderline with a no consensus result? Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was the most recent at 74.5%. And there were two or three more recent than that in the mid- to upper-60%s. Useight (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If mid- to upper-60s are now considered borderline, I guess I'd best start !voting more often-- the bar seems to keep getting lower and lower (while we continue to lose good admins). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied that mid-60 is borderline, as that was not my intent. I simply wanted to give a good indicator of how often the actual borderline RFAs were relative to others. Useight (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been particularly loud about pointing out that the candidate has created completely unreferenced articles less than a month ago, but if there's a chance this will get dragged into "overtime", that will change. Consider that some of the neutrals (certainly mine) aren't opposing yet because the RfA is clearly failing and don't want to pile on against a long-term editor. But if 65% is considered close enough for an extension, that will change as well. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly :) I don't weigh in on clearly failing RFAs for specifically that reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to do anything here. All of this falls within bureaucrat discretion: if it needs to be extended, it will be; if a chat is needed, there will be one; otherwise, it will close as successful or unsuccessful. Simple as that. There ain't nothing broken here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Ninhonjoe. I appreciate your point of view and of those who've written above. I wasn't peremptorily alluding to anything being broken out here. Mine was just a good faith request for the bureaucrats to consider extending the RfA discussion in case the candidate failed consensus by a minimal margin, given the fact that from 48 supports and 32 opposes (including mine), the RfA now has 68 71 supports and 34 33 opposes. Of course there are a few more hours left. But my attempt was purely to bring attention to this issue and to provide a considerate point of view with respect to the RfA,despite being an opposer. Apologies again for the request, if it appeared insular to/with my perspective. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth I support the intent of Wifione in their coming to this board. I had put a similar request for 'crat consideration in my !vote in support, before I became aware of this thread. Wifione is to be commended, in my view, for coming here as an opposer, which shows a special effort to be even-handed in this very close !vote, in which the supporting percentage picked up steam. Thanks for any extra discussion on this Rfa, if that is possible. Jusdafax 18:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to pile any more crap onto GS than already has been (for those who haven't done it it, take it form me: RfA is tough), TRM is right. This isn't really borderline and there are serious, clear concerns in the oppose section (disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I opposed, which isn't something I do lightly) and nothing in the support section that would mitigate those concerns. Lear's Fool's was similar, but there were less serious concerns and a greater proportion of people willing to put their trust in him (I was neutral). I have to say, I think Lear's Fool should have been closed as no consensus after the 7 days and it's unfortunate that he was "promoted" I'm loathe to use that term because it only feeds the wrong impression of adminship in such circumstances, not because he'd be a bad admin (from what I've seen so far he seems to be doing a good job), but because it will follow him around and, for some time, editors who participated in the RfA and surrounding discussions will (even if they don't intend to) judge him by the controversy that surrounded the RfA rather than his actual performance as an admin. Very similar to the mostly-forgotten Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rami R, where the candidate admirably withdrew after the close time but before it was closed by a 'crat, even though he was in the discretionary area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've just closed the RFA as unsuccessful, there really wasn't a clear consensus to promote, nor was there a clear consensus trending towards promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, quite an appropriate close. I also wished to say that the message you left on Snowman's talk is very thoughtful and quite a model one to be left for similar RfA candidates. I close this thread here. Thanks and regards to all of you. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I handed in my sysop bit several years ago when I stopped editing due to lack of interest and time. Now I'm editing again, and I suspect I'll find the tools convenient. It's been some time, but having looked around I think I can catch up smoothly on any policy changes. Unless any of the 'crats feel that the long absence would be a problem, I'd like to request the tools back. --Robth^Talk 05:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any issues which would prevent their return. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• No, I had a look around, I can't see any problems here either. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I third this request and have resysopped. Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've drafted an explanation about SUL conflicts and rough guide for handling them at Wikipedia:Handling SUL conflicts. Comments, tweaks, etc. are invited. –xeno^talk 16:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• On a related matter, additional comments from other bureaucrats would be welcome here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#None (SUL request) → Critias. –xeno^talk 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• On the same issue, User:Chris G Bot 3 now detects unattached global accounts that may preclude a rename request at simple (e.g.). As such, the bot will now be taking over adding clerk notes - with thanks to User:X! for the years of service from User:SoxBot (which has been disabled and will presumably remain available on active standby). –xeno^talk 14:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I resigned my adminship in late 2009 as a consequence of emotional burnout acquired while clerking a particularly horrendous Arbcom case. I've since had a year of quiet anon editing to recover in, and feel I am now fit to resume the broom. Manning (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; would you mind if your old userpages were undeleted? MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to do it myself upon regaining my bit (assuming that happened). But feel free to do it yourself - thanks :) Manning (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, undelated, I'll do the re-bitting when I wake up if someone else hasn't done it first. MBisanz ^talk 08:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, and, in a minute, it'll be done. Welcome back to mopping. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, there is a new option (requested by me, written by User:X! - teamwork ftw!) to suppress the redirects normally created during a rename.

This has particular utility during usurp requests, where we previously had a hacky "Vacate target userspace" workaround, or had to manually delete the redirects ourselves afterwards.

One minor issue (reported at the above-mentioned bug) is that it is not accepting the URL parameter input to automatically check the box. There is a javascript workaround that User:Amalthea wrote for me until then, simply add the following to special:Mypage/skin.js -

// this checks the suppress redirect tickbox when in the middle of a usurp request (written by Amalthea). temporary workaround until bugzilla:23819 re-fixed
if (wgNamespaceNumber==-1 && wgCanonicalSpecialPageName=="Renameuser") addOnloadHook(function() {
  if (getURLParamValue("suppressredirect")!="1") return;
  var node = document.getElementById("suppressredirect");
  if (node && !node.checked) node.checked = true;
});

FYI. –xeno^talk 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Could this just be added to a global JS page (rather than each 'crat having to add it manually to their own)? EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

r82285 will be useful for things like this. Happy‑melon 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, but then it would need to be removed when the bug is fixed. –xeno^talk 18:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw my request for adminship, as it has become clear that it won't succeed. I'd appreciate if someone could close and archive it when you get a chance. Thanks. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The brouhaha over the recent desysopping is mentioned in today's WP:Signpost. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are reasons for Arbcom to want to prefer to do a desysopping relatively quickly and quietly, would it make sense for them to ask you guys for an expert opinion on whether the admin's actions are out of line with former or current expectations at RFA? If your services were requested, would any of you want to volunteer to offer such an opinion? - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We have 16 active arbs, elected as a group of highly trusted editors. One of them is a crat. I don't see that asking one other editor for input (off-wiki!) would have prevented the brouhaha at hand.
Amalthea 11:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the current discussion, and my general view of Arbcom is positive. But how could it actually hurt Arbcom's ability to make an off-wiki call to have off-wiki input from people who the community widely supports in their role of wading through the daily musings of the community on the question of current standards for adminship? Of course, all the usual caveats apply: we can't know the results before we try it, everything on Wikipedia is voluntary, and there's never been an expectation that this is part of your jobs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the project has been, so far, pretty clear about the bureaucratic mandate vis-a-vis admin/crat bit-flipping, and that is that our role is as implementers of community consensus, not our own judgment. Our job is to implement community consensus and, as best as possible, to disassociate our personal opinions from our analysis of a communal response. Furthermore, the Arbitration committee is the body imbued with the primary responsibility for desysopping. It would not be appropriate, in my opinion, for me as a bureaucrat to "overrule" ArbCom. As an "editor" I may contact an arb or three asking for an explanation, but that has nothing to do with my being a 'crat. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, this is becoming a bit of a sticky wicket, and we're in a sort of a Catch-22 over the entire thing...but we need to put this to bed one way or another.

I visited Courcelles this evening, and am here at his suggestion. After the Pending Changes trial supposedly expired in August (August 15 to be exact was the scheduled end), we ended up having a Closure discussion, a Straw poll, and ANOTHER Straw Poll, the last to decide what to do until November 9, when Version 2 was supposed to be available for testing. I don't think a new trial was ever announced (if it was, I missed it), but the feature in all reality was supposed to be put out of service temporarily at the end of 2010 if the new version wasn't ready.

It's still in use in places, and on February 23, this whole chit-chat mess started up again. I just happened to stumble upon it yesterday (I'm in EST) and found, right near the bottom of that page, a big huge poll started by the same person who previously created the other heavily-flawed poll. Knowing that another user poll would have absolutely no result one way or the other, I immediately deleted it, got what initially felt like a little bit of negative or standoffish reaction from that user (and praise from others), and after talking to Courcelles am acting on a suggestion I will detail below.

Would a bureaucrat be willing to help co-ordinate a fair and legitimate poll wherein we can get to a final consensus on whether to proceed with Pending Changes either in full implementation or in a trial format? It will be useless to just let users decide on this because it could result either in wikicanvassing on both sides (I thought I found some canvassing for the "remove" side in September in fact) or in a very fragmented and badly slanted poll that is favoured to one result (which the first straw poll was accused of initially). We need a fairly administered poll, preferably run by a bureaucrat with input from one person (at most perhaps two) from each side, and then whatever that small group led by the bureaucrat eventually agrees could become a binding result for the community; that is, it'll be easier to get one or two more involved editors to agree on a compromise or alternative instead of trying to convince hundreds of editors enraged in how the entire polling process has played out. The new discussion is going to get us nowhere any quicker than the prior ones did. I think we need to put this to rest, whether we go forward or not with it. What might be the best way to proceed here? CycloneGU (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec. More soon.  Chzz  ►  02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean you are typing a reply, or that something is in process? Should I perhaps try to close the last discussion above and say hold on for a few days? For the record I have just found this post, coincidentally also noted by Chzz (I found it at the top of the discussion), so I see a similar idea to what Courcelles brought up might already be in the works. CycloneGU (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - it meant, I was typing a reply...

Of course, I am not a 'crat. But I do offer my opinion here;

• No rush. An RfC is a request for community discussion. Do not confuse long text with argument. There is nothing wrong with long discussions. PC has been in a state of flux since at least December. The RfC started on 16 Feb. Give it a chance?
• Why ask 'crats? Sure. they can help decide things, but there is no remit for them in this situation; no more than asking an admin to wave a magic want and resolve it, or Jimbo, or anyone else. The community can decide if we think we can accept PC-version-x with 50%+1, or 60%, or 2/3 or whatever. All a 'crat can do is, assess whether we have or have not agreed to that figure, and then attempt to gauge consensus accordingly. Thus far, there is no agreement.
• Let's not spread this out. There's an RfC. Argument is spilling over into User talk:Jimbo Wales, and various talks, and now here; that doesn't help things at all. There's a page for it all, so let's use it.
• CycloneGU, there are indeed ongoing ideas - not that I am hiding anything; the only reason I have not yet posted my own specific concept is, because it is very rough draft; have a look at this - hence my request for more time! (your comments would be most welcome, on my talk is perhaps best, at this meta-proposed-proposal stage?)
• Above all else, keep calm, and have a cup of tea. I'm sure we can figure it all out, if we're patient. Hope you understand; please feel absolutely free to shout on my talk about my 'taking control' or whatever you will; but I hope you'll see that, like you, I am trying my very best to help move to mutually-acceptable ways forward. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem...not trying to rush, I'm only here at Courcelles' suggestion. I'll sit back with a Coke perhaps. And yes, I'll take a look at what you're drafting, it would be of interest. CycloneGU (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I really meant is that this is the place to talk to the 'crats, not that the specific matter is generally within their remit. This probably isn't the best place to spread this discussion. Courcelles 03:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This may in fact not be the place to discuss Pending Changes. Short of some speedy close, it might be hard to quell. And I believe if this discussion is open, to consider a bureaucratic role as described by CycloneGU, discussion would necessarily ensue. Respectfully submitted. My76Strat 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I appear to have mistook Courcelles' post, then. I thought it was a suggestion to post a request here to see if we can solve the PC situation, and that may be an error on my part. On the other hand, it did get me in touch with a like-minded user who has a similar feeling in wanting to get this situation resolved, so in that sense it still turned out useful to me. In light of the latest comments, if a close is necessary let it be done. CycloneGU (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have also learned that this page doesn't require an official close, therefor spoke from ignorance when suggesting a speedy close. Thanks for accepting my contribution in good faith. FWIW I am not at all averse to the idea of a significant bureaucratic roll in developing an instrument to close this trial. Either by committed implementation, or discontinuation. I have no reason to believe any of your corp would desire this additional workload, but reasonably anticipate that you would ultimately do what is best for Wikipedia. Thanks again. My76Strat 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this, another user is trying to exercise RTV. Could someone here help them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently tried to fulfill a rename request but received the following message...

...and was unable to complete the rename. Is this limitation new?

In any case, we need to update local pages and (presumably) direct anyone with a higher edit count requesting a rename to m:SR/UC, unless they are simply to be denied renaming altogether. –xeno^talk 19:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember this being discussed a few years ago, I believe it was with DMHO/Giggy that the issue came up. As memory serves me, that name change caused problems and it was recommended that any name change for somebody with a significant number of edits would have to be handled by the developers.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I still think that the actual prohibition by the software is fairly new - the rename request in question was to reverse the rename that went through fine back in November 2010, at which point the user still had more than 25,000 edits. –xeno^talk 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember bugging various devs over the years about this as renames over 25,000 tend to break when reattributing edits. Apparently one put this limitation in place. I don't know which one off hand. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There can sometimes be a delay before the rename finishes, and it may appear to others that the rename had failed (since the old name remains in place for a day or two). In the case of this user, I wonder if the rename might be avoided: (a) He could change his usual signature to match his account name, (b) An admin could update the Arbcom cases so that his current name is made clear. He seems to have had privacy concerns about his original name (he believed that people knew who he was), which makes the desire to switch back somewhat puzzling. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, good suggestions- though I was mainly looking for input on the situation in general; wondering if anyone knows if Stewards are able and willing to perform such renames or if they are simply to be denied outright. –xeno^talk 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it looks like this limitation has been in place, or at least was supposed to have been in place, since at least 2006. It's possible that it was previously broken, of course, or that the limit has recently been lowered. Happy‑melon 21:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember a kerfuffle about the text of the CHU page when the limit was increased from 20,000 to 200,000 in May 2006. However I don't know about any subsequent changes to the limit besides the recent one. Graham87 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And also see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16#What's the upper limit on our performing renames? Perhaps the theoretical limit was changed to two million at some point in the past. Graham87 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

← In any case, it seems, the new (or now-enforced) limitation also applies to Stewards. –xeno^talk 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked in #wikimedia-tech and TimStarling said that it was a bug, but that looks intentional to me... -- Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 06:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Aaron if he'd mind commenting here to let us know the score. WJBscribe (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Until the problem pointed out in r74340 is fixed, it won't be going up much. Aaron Schulz 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest the relevant documentation is updated to say that no account with 25,000+ contribs can be renamed until further notice. Perhaps the bots could be updated to flag up instances where the account that is to be renamed has more than the maximum permitted number of edits. WJBscribe (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Does that 25,000 include or exclude deleted contributions? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the (also bugged) MW edit count - so it....does, somewhat. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it includes all the edits that the software is able to quickly find, which as T Canens says, may vary depending on the phase of the moon and whether the database gods noticed your latest burnt offering (and more mundanely which database slave the query is run on and how heavily loaded it is :D). But in principle, deleted contributions should be included. Happy‑melon 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing says they can't be done, You will just need to ask a developer nicely to do it for you and point them to a page where the particular rename has been approved, You could even request it in Bugzilla if you desired under "Wikimedia/Site Requests". Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, rename my account "User:Korczak" in "User:Krupski Oleg" in en.wikipedia respectively my IP. The reason - for a global account, I did not get access in pl.wikipedia.org, why there has been "User:Korczak". I am therefore obliged to address separately (in each section) to local bureaucrats, to save my data. Regards Krupski Oleg (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MaIIeus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account, MaIIeus Fatuorum, is a duck sock account using ASCII look-alikes (uppercase 'ie' in place of a lowercase 'el') to impersonate Malleus Fatuorum. Should it be renamed to prevent confusion? (I am using a different font so the letters are more distinguishable.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#AfD_stats_for_RfA_candidates --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling you guys are going to hate me for suggesting this, but here it goes anyway: We have been talking about how this thing will be closed when it is complete. (plans for a third phase are in the works now) The idea of a sort of "jury" has been floated a few times. But how to select that jury? Do we look for a blend of people we know to have strong feelings on the matter, do we look for people who are centrists, or what? Well, I had the idea that maybe we should go to a group of our most trusted users who are known for their ability to evaluate prolonged, contentious issues in an objective manner and deliver a decision that reflects the will of the community. That would be you guys. I just dreamed this idea up and have gotten no feedback from the other participants yet, but thought I would run this up the flagpole over here just to gauge crat opinion on accepting this responsibility. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the love guys. I know, nobody wants to do this, but somebody has to. Could I at least get a "go to hell we're not going to do it?" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. thanks for your prompt and courteous attention in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response. I've been really busy offline (not sure why no one else has responded). I looked at the talk page and I'm not sure what you are looking for as there are all kinds of discussions taking place there. Can you be more specific about what you want here? That may be part of the reason for a lack of response. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's looking for an indication as to whether any bureaucrats would agree to sit on a panel to close the most recent pending changes RFC (at which point he would presumably seek consensus to establish such a panel). –xeno^talk 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I took a look, was confused and forgot to leave a message. Incidentally, I think you'd hit fewer objections if your contributors settled on some individuals you'd like to ask to help, which may include some crats, rather than looking to the crats as a group of crats. We're by nature conservative when it comes to looking like we want to expand our own remit, without strong community consensus first. --Dweller (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Without comment on the merits of the proposal, I would decline a request to sit on a panel to close the Pending changes RFC (for various reasons). –xeno^talk 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There was recently a thread here about the recently-added limitation that prevents renaming accounts with over 25,000 edits. Just noting here FYI that the limit has now apparently been raised to 50,000 edits.[5] Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

With r84228/r83494 the whole limit will be gone. Aaron Schulz 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted. When does r84228/r83494 take effect? WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Who knows :) Aaron Schulz 09:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The last time I asked someone when a particular Mediawiki revision would go live, they told me "Sometime between two days and two years". So there =] –xeno^talk 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fellow crats (and watchers of this page with an interest in RfA) may be interested in this thread at Jimbo's user talk. Seems to have been prompted by the retirement from Wikipedia of a candidate who recently did not pass RfA. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I like the "consultation by email to Jimbo" idea. Not what I would regard as collegiate or community-based. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, in this area, I don't care if the god king acts. RfA is broken... it has become too vicious. We need another way to elect/approve/promote admins; but past discussions have shown that left to our own devices, we won't do anything. We'll talk and talk, but then it'll die. We have become slaves to our consensusology, on small things it works ok, on big things forget it. Unless Jimbo or the WMF comes down and says, "try this" or even "you have 3 months to get an alternative process in place", then nothing will happen.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We sort of need the supreme monarch to step in. The community is pulling in every direction, hence going nowhere. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In physics terms, the vector sum is 0. (X! · talk)  · @138  ·  02:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Two-tier adminship - appointed by the community vs appointed by god (he's going to run his system in parallel with RfAd). That'll go well. And when Jimbo momentarily forgets which side of the road is which and walks under a bus (which god forbid) we'll never be able to do anything again - afaik there's no Prince of Wales with a lifetime's training ready to take the throne. "Jim'll Fix It" is no way to run an encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Arbcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ArbCom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has e-mail enabled and is unblocked, so it should probably be renamed and blocked to prevent issues with users e-mailing the fake account. The real account for e-mail purposes is Arbitration Committee (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare created that account after the last rename. Not sure if he still has control over it, and where that email leads. Amalthea 16:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The email should point to the Committee's mailing list, if I recall correctly. I no longer remember the password. NW (Talk) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:ArbCom, and redirected/protected the user and user talk pages the same way that User:Arbcom was handled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I have to admit it's a bit of a thrill to see "(Block log) Floquenbeam (talk|contribs|block) blocked ArbCom (talk|contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite...". It gives me an undeserved feeling of immense power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It was as if eighteen voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. –xeno^talk 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The email does point to the list. Everything looks good now, no need to rename. –xeno^talk 21:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I had thought that trolls had registered these accounts to steal people's email addresses and personal information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bot Approvals Group is responsible for reviewing and approving bots on Wikipedia. However, for an extended period of time we have been staffed at below the optimal number for reviewing bot requests. Therefore, I am asking experienced members of the community with an interest in reviewing bots to consider submitting themselves for membership at Wikipedia_talk:BAG#Requests_for_BAG_membership. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How did the rename below go through if it had more than 25,000 edits? MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1. (del/undel) 21:21, April 4, 2011 MBisanz (talk | contribs | block) renamed User:RGTraynor to "Ravenswing" ‎ (29,364 edits. Reason: WP:CHU)

It seems that the limit has been raised to 50000 edits. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 21#Re: Rename edit count limitation: Is this new?. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, weird, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this here as I think it's beyond an admin's powers/capability to sort out. Dgriffith161 (talk · contribs) has a signature that links to his user page and the talk page of Dgriffith (talk · contribs). This is confusing the hell out of me, so I'm sure it would have the same effect on another editor. I've asked at user talk:Dgriffith161 if the editor needs assistance with his signature, but no reply has been received yet.

It may be that the two accounts are connected, with one being abandoned in 2009 and the new one created in 2011. I don't know why the signature is set up this way. Is there any way a 'crat can fix the signature for the user, or would this need to be passed higher up the chain for action. Please note that in posting here, I am not looking to get Dgriffith161 blocked from editing. As I see no notice informing me that it is necessary, I won't inform Dgriffith161 of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, we can't change how signatures are done and neither can stewards. Maybe sysadmins can, but I've never heard of it being done, even for extreme cases. MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about a (temporary?) redirect to cure the signature problem, of will you pass this up to see what comes back? Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no way to "pass it up," there is bugzilla I suppose, but you can just create a redirect to help him around it. MBisanz ^talk 06:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, I said it was confusing, users now in correct order! Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A redirect is not the way to go. I've added a {{tmbox}} to the talk page of Dgriffith, pointing editors to the correct user talk page for now. Will ask Jimbo if there's anything else to be don. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wait for the user to respond. He has made exactly one edit, and hasn't edited since you informed him of his broken signature. Amalthea 09:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done all I can with this one. It may not even be anything to do with Dgriffith161, as I very much doubt that a new editor would know how to deliberately alter part of their signature. DGriffith only made a few edits back in 2009, and the subjects that each editor edited are completely different. My gut feeling is that this is a software glitch. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA needs closing, please, at the request of the candidate [6].  Chzz  ►  13:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Yes, agreed.  Chzz  ►  13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I requested voluntary desysopping while working through some issues I had here. Procrastinating is over, and its time to get back to work. I'd like to get the key to the broom cabinet back. As indicated, the departure was voluntary and cloud-free. Thanks, MLauba ^(Talk) 11:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and can't find a problem. --Dweller (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No dissent, so I'll restore your mop imminently. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no issues, either. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct that the only real backlog for bureaucrats is WP:CHU? If so, would any bureaucrat have an objection to adding renameuser to the administrator usergroup? NW (Talk) 22:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a 'crat, but I've seen this issue discussed before. Historically, I believe the answer to this question has been that the bureaucrats wouldn't mind but the developers probably would, because renames of accounts with thousands of edits are a server-drain issue. (I'm sure someone with more technical knowledge can explain, but it has something to do with having to search the database to reattribute all the edits.) Thus, the desire to have only a few people who can perform renames, to cut down on frivolous or unnecessary requests. I think it is just a historical accident that this particular chore is assigned to the same small group of users that promotes administrators, and I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to give this tool to a few more people if the we could decide how to choose them without a year or two's wrangling, but I can understand why it might be problematic to give the permission to every admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a backlog might not be a terrible thing if the alternative is people asking for new usernames on a whim. I think they used to have a 7 day waiting period on purpose just to make sure people are really sure they want to change. However, I believe the Spanish wikipedia is doing this, because they have merged admins and bureaucrats into one group (with a few exceptions), and there is no chaos as far as I'm aware. But theyre a surprisingly small wiki for such a widely spoken language, and the server resources might be a lot higher over here. This is all assuming that an expansion in the group that is able to do renames will lead to more people wanting to be renamed, which may not be true. —Soap— 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the 7 day waiting period you're referring to is for usurping accounts; I don't recall any such limit on regular renames. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if most people even subconsciously consider how long they will have to wait to user their new username when they request a username change. But do you have a link to previous discussions on this matter? NW (Talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective: it is quite common for new users to quickly realise their name is a problem, and wish to change it. The best advice I can give to them - and please, correct me if I am wrong - is like this. But, that does send out a confusing message; and I believe the 'meh, just create a new account' is partly because of the perceived 'hassle' in changing name. There is the added complication that it is not entirely clear when names change - and users edit under both. Mostly, this is a technical issue - as is the issue renaming accounts with 1000's of edits; if their making > x,000 edits is a problem then can't that just be restricted through a technical manner (stopping SysOp from renaming, but allowing 'crats to over-ride)?

My non-technical point is this: new users often create inappropriate user-names, and want to change them; it is complicated, and takes time. Meanwhile, their article - which often incorporates the problem name - can be subjected to CSD, PROD or AfD. If they are swiftly blocked (even with {{softerblock}}) - they cannot appeal or contribute to discussion until it is (in there eyes) too late.

The 'you must wait 7 days' sounds like a weak argument - unless we can put forward a proposal whereby users seeking renames have to apply for it. And again - maybe, beyond come cut-off, that is valid. But surely that can be overcome programmatically? (ie, that it'd only be a one-time thing; so that idiots couldn't just keep swapping names to avoid people noticing their edits)

So how about: users with <100 edits, and who have not already been renamed, could be renamed by SysOp?  Chzz  ►  00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if any admin could rename an account with few edits, much as per Chzz. It should be as easy as Wikipedia:Request an account. Spreading the message that new users can just create a new account sits so wrong next to WP:SOCK. For many-edit users, I personally wish that they would not be renamed without very good reaon. Its a technical hassle, confuses those who are not keeping up-to-date with current active users, messes up with old contribution histories versus signatures, and in the case of admins makes it hard to find and review their RFAs. So, would be an idea to split Wikipedia:Changing username into low-edit renames done by any admin, and high-edit renames that are to remain a big deal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But is it really necessary? Is there such a backlog at CHU that the existing 'crats (of whom there are quite a few proportional to the amount of work required of them) can't handle it? Do the admin corps at large want this extra burden? Is it a good idea to expand the number of "parents" one can ask from a few dozen to several hundred? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

'crats are all admins, so there is no additional burden; there is no extra effort required. If they want to keep doing it, great. Making something difficult by deliberately making it bureaucratic is no way to resolve an issue. If we don't want people to rename more than 'x' times in 'y' months, or after 'z' edits, fine fine - policy. No need to obfustate the reality behind bureaucracy.  Chzz  ►  01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The only danger I can think of is that it is possible to "break" accounts using the rename function. On more than one occasion I've seen edit histories split, userrights split, etc. from established users. I don't think the way the function is set up that it can be broken out by number of edits, but I suppose that anything can be changed with enough coding. I wouldn't say there is a substantial backlog at CHU, but more hands are always wanted. I'm a firm neutral on this proposal. MBisanz ^talk 05:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any issue which needs to be fixed. Sometimes there is a backlog, and sometimes there isn't one. In my experience, the rename requests seem to come in waves, with a whole bunch all at once and then it slows down to a trickle. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, but I think that extending renameuser option to that many people will cause problems in terms of a greater number of mistakes being made (especially in terms of new SUL conflicts being created due to not properly checking for collisions).

There have also been concerns raised in the past about renames being done in a non-transparent fashion; increasing the number of users able to perform renames by over 1000 will increase the chance that someone might be convinced into renaming a user outside the normal process.

As an aside, one way to reduce the amount of rename requests from new users would be to give an overview of the username policy during the new user signup process. –xeno^talk 13:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But, as has been pointed out recently on Strategywiki, our signup process was around 600 words- which is very, very long when compared to other websites. I don't have any data, but I imagine most folks just glossed over it to see what went in each field. Almost all of the guidance about username choice on the signup screen has recently been removed. Courcelles 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered about that. Doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea; baby and bathwater, and the like. –xeno^talk 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree- we went from asking folks to read a short story to giving them no guidance at all that we have standards for usernames, simpler, but not really an improvement. Courcelles 14:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have said as much here. –xeno^talk 14:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

24 Hours ago 2 Bots were approved and still need the BOT tag. Jamietw (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

User rights updated. In the future, please post links to the bot approval discussions as they are hard to find once removed from the main discussion page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the "tasks" link provided at WP:BRFAA usually links the relevant BRFA. –xeno^talk 13:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha, that's good to know. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Once 1.18 arrives, it will be even easier as there will be a handy link to automagically include a link to the BRFA in the reason field. (cf. bugzilla:26851) –xeno^talk 15:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Jamietw (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient. –xeno^talk 15:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been about 6 months since I gave up the bit. I am asking that my privilidges be restored.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking in my editorial capacity, I see no indication that Balloonman "may have resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions" and see no reason to object to a standard WP:RESYSOP. –xeno^talk 16:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I support resysopping, as Balloonman resigned in good standing and was a decent administrator prior to his resignation. (Welcome back, Balloonman.) Acalamari 17:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, only a futile attempt at retirement. Glad you recognized the error of your ways, Balloonman. :) Amalthea 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I had 3 months in a row where my edit count was less than 100---which is what *I* consider the minimum count for an active editor.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone who's still editing almost every day is pretty active by my standards, regardless of their edit count. Anyway, welcome "back", Balloonman! :) Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks Joe.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to change my username, but being an occasionally active SUL user I prefer to ask first if there will be any problem with the usurpation of the nickname before proceeding to the rename. The username is Austro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google). It has only 2 log entries (registration and upload of an image that was deleted) and no significant edits (probably a few deleted ones). Thanks, --Austro I'm listening 21:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it at WP:USURP, there are 3 other SULs, so I don't know if you care about not editing those wikis or what their USURP policies are. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As far as the other accounts are concerned, it.wiki is my home wiki and I know exactly the history of the username there, I think that on pt.wiki there won't be any problem (but I will ask beforehand). I am concerned, though, about incubator, because my current SUL does not even work there. --Austro I'm listening 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the account is dormant since 2007, so probably won't be a problem. You might want to contact one of the 'crats there to ask if there is a usurp procedure. –xeno^talk 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I talked to an Incubator Crat on IRC and they said it would be ok, so feel free to leave a note at his talkpage when you are ready for rename there. MBisanz ^talk 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, many thanks for your help! --Austro I'm listening 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have made a request to usurp an existing account here, User:MobileFish (hasn't edited for 4 years, only edit from the account was deleted). I created it at en.wikinews to keep mobile and home edits seperate, and only discovered the existance of this one when I tried to SUL, and found I couldn't. I wanted to know if there would be a full week requirement for me to wait (considering the account's been inactive for 4 years), or whether it could simply be done. I ran into a steward earlier on IRC, who suggested to post here and see what could be done. The request is here - Many thanks. Fish^Barking? 22:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the wait on this one. That account has no email registered to it, and there hasn't been any activity for 4 years. I think moving it to User:MobileFish (usurped) would be acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is usual practice to perform requests made to unify global accounts straight away, without waiting the 7 day period required for other usurpation requests. WJBscribe (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since xeno is now inactive, WP:CHUU is going to be lonely and without order :p Since I am not a 'crat, I can only clerk the page - I cannot fulfill requests. Anyway, if somebody could step up to help clear out the requests, and then maintain the page, that would be much appreciated :p (I'm sure that somebody would attend to it eventually, but xeno has been the main person there for quite some time). Thanks, demize (t · c) 20:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting RFA. It is currently about 12 hours overdue for closure. A statement by the closing bureaucrat would definitely be appreciated, no matter which way this one goes. NW (Talk) 03:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this as unsuccessful, the opposition was significant, and this really isn't borderline or discretionary. I don't think any further explanation is required but I would be happy to answer a specific question. Andrevan@ 03:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that what NuclearWarFare is really asking for is a statement outlining the bureaucrats view on oppose votes based on the candidates age. Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was going to ask. If Andrevan is looking for specific questions, mine would be how much weight was given to each !vote which was based (to some extent) on maturity or age, and why? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There were only a handful of oppose comments which explicitly referenced age. I would say a greater issue in this RFA was the lack of significant content contributions. However, there was certainly some doubt about the candidate's maturity, which is indeed a legitimate concern. Please note that maturity and age, while often correlated, are separate issues. I became an admin myself when I was 15 (of course, RFA was a much different process in 2004), so I am sympathetic to allowing teenagers to become administrators. I would argue that the maturity I and other teenage would-be admins displayed was sufficient regardless of age, and there was no consensus that this user displayed the same requisite maturity. There is no requirement that prospective admins reveal their age or any personal information about themselves. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, but if you bark or seem concerned with playing fetch, they could find out. So in conclusion, age did not play a significant role in this RFA, nor should this RFA establish any sort of precedent regarding age of admins, which remains a case by case issue. Andrevan@ 13:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good response!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I created an account finally after cajoling by my friend and called it BarkingMoon. Then I tried to make it on Commons and it wouldn't let me, something about a unified system. But Commons did let me make BarkingMoon7. So now my two names don't match and I really like BarkingMoon. I don't understand this. Can someone help me out? BarkingMoon (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Try going to Special:MergeAccount, and let me know what you see. You should have had a global account automatically created, but for some reason it appears not have occurred. Prodego ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It says "The accounts named "BarkingMoon" on each of the following sites have been automatically attached to the unified account: en wiki" but what about my name on commons? Can it be BarkingMoon too? I really don't understand this. Thanks for helping. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you have a global account. You can log in on commonswiki, or any other wikimedia wiki, by using your same username and password that you do on the English Wikipedia. Prodego ^talk 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it works. I don't know how you did that, but it was very kind of you to help out. I'll leave a note on commons BarkingMoon7 about this. I hope everyone else on wiki is this nice and helpful. My friend only edits a little and did not know how to fix this except come here. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do anything - that should have happened automatically when you created your account. I'm not sure why it didn't, but going to Special:MergeAccount seems to have fixed it. Cheers, Prodego ^talk 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I please have my admin flag restored? I requested it to be removed due to inactivity [7], but now I'm returning to the fold. Thanks. -Chunky Rice (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any issues which would prevent returning the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello... I received this request from an IP that identifies as Druth on the French Wikipedia. The user wants to inquire about claiming the name User:Druth on EnWiki. As the admin who blocked Druth on this project, it appears that the two are different individuals based on contributions. I have left a note on Druth's French talk page asking them to confirm the request there (to verify the account). Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Druth has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#BAG_Nomination:_Headbomb has been open just shy of two weeks now, which is nearly twice as long as is required by policy. Could a crat take a look and close? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

•   Done -- Avi (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like some wider input on Wikipedia:CHUU#Plzmergethis_.E2.86.92_Steadfast. The requesting user is a de.wiki user who owns the SUL, while the en.wiki user is the only ununified account. However, the en.wiki user objects to rename. From my view, the de.wiki user has a right to the account as owning the global account, but we can't make the en.wiki user give it up. Any thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean from anyone? Did you mean here? The enwiki account [8] is twice as old and has half as many edits as the dewiki account [9]. The objection is reasonable. Sorry, that's too bad. Maybe the enwiki Steadfast can be asked to host a hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 7, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 8, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 9, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 10, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 11, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 12, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 14 have now been open starting since last October. No one on BAG wants to decide on the tasks because we're all either conflicted out (like myself) or unwilling to touch the operator/task with a ten-foot pole because of the highly political history/nature of the situation. Since BAG can't resolve these requests and they are otherwise clogging our docket, could some uninvolved 'crats please step in and help out here? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that there's currently an ongoing discussion between BAG members on this. No need for 'crat involvement in the immediate future, but 'crats would be welcome to jump on IRC (#wikipedia-BAG) or might need to get involved in the next few days. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would you care to point out to me where it is? or were you in fact referring to your own request for membership, where you already ruled out in principle support for most of the tasks that Lightmouse was ever likely to propose? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• The discussion(s) were on IRC. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like this resolved too. Over many years, I've done a huge amount of good work converting units efficiently and contributing to debates. I've tried two angles:

• Apply bottom-up step-by-step for small changes. For example, we already have 'feet+miles' running very efficiently now and I've applied to include inches. The advantage of this is that the doubters can see that semi-automated conversion of units isn't so bad. The disadvantage is that it takes lots of applications to get any decent scope.
• Apply top-down for entire categories e.g. 'units of temperature'. The advantage is that the scope is sufficient. The disadvantage is that people want to have long debates about theoretical possibilities.

If it's ok to convert feet and miles, then it's ok to do other units. I'm not the enemy. There are lots of options:

• • have a 50 edit trial, then a whole series of them.
  • Have a 100 per-day or 50 per-hour limit on the edits.
  • Have a 10 day limit on the edits.
  • Have a restriction to manual (i.e. press the 'save' button each time) mode for Lightbot.
  • Have a restriction to a non-bot account i.e. Lightmouse
  • Have a mentor
  • Any combination of the above

Lightbot1 to Lightbot3 ran over the entire scope of 'units of measure'. It was hugely successful and it's code has been copied widely by other editors. There are frequently repeated assertions that I'm a bad person and it baffles me how they can conclude that from my work with units. The date linking saga has had lots of consequences including collateral damage to the good work by Lightbot doing units. That's all behind us now. I'm running a bot now for feet and miles. If two units can be converted, then so can other units. Simples. I'd be happy to drop or merge applications if they were being processed. Lightmouse (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like someone to temporarily +sysop an alternate account of mine User:Prodebot, so that I can have it block itself identically to the way I blocked myself [10], and see if it is able to unblock itself. I was unable to unblock myself when I was blocked (unless I did something wrong), but unblockself is a userright admins are listed as having. I repeated the scenario on testwiki and it worked as expected there. I'd rather do it without blocking myself again. Thank you, Prodego ^talk 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See bugzilla:28352. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha, that explains everything. Thanks, saves me some testing! Prodego ^talk 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The RFC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles has run for over 30 days and due to the size, importance and strong feelings on both sides of the debate any closure/summarization is going to be difficult and controversial. It was therefore suggest to ask a bureaucrat to close it, for "capable judges of consensus" is part of your job description. A notice has already been posted at wp:AN, but they are typically slow to respond to calls of closure. Would one of you be willing to take the job? Yoenit (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For personal reasons, I want to exercise my right to vanish and to close my account for good (Bozgo (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC))

As you have very few contributions, the best thing to do is to just abandon your account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please place the bot flag on User:Wikinews Importer Bot. The bot has been work flawlessly since 2008 but has never had the bot flag. Regards. mauchoeagle _(c) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevant - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Done MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The percentage at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 has been pretty stable for the past few days, so I wouldn't mind an early close, so that the question is resolved before the work week restarts. If you feel it would be valuable to let it run the full length, that's fine too. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I could switch my !vote if that would help juggle the numbers around if you'd like? j/k .. good luck no matter how it closes SoV. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a great idea. I'm sure there are many !voters, example moi, who wait to read all the oppose and support !votes before actually voting. Best to let things run their course to the end. --rgpk (comment) 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. While I personally think that RFA is not the place for such reconfirmation-requests, once initiated and discussed, it should run until the end. Otherwise, people will probably feel that their time has been wasted with this RFA. Regards SoWhy 20:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. To be frank, I am astonished by this request by Sarek. Once initiated, the process should run its course. Jusdafax 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

An unfortunate request.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely an RfA is conducted at the convenience of the community, not the candidate? Particularly when the RfA process being endured is entirely of candidate's manufacture. A somewhat shocking request under the circumstances. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm. I think people may be misunderstanding Sarek's intentions here. I think he was hoping for the best but fully expecting the worst since his RfA has been in the judgement call zone the entire time and probably just wanting to "get it over with". - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That 72% I was referencing above is pretty low in the judgement call zone, and I wasn't foreseeing anything that was likely to change the percentages radically, since it's been sitting between 71 and 74% for the last 4 days (until I posted this, which seems to have started to have that effect. *headdesk*). Consider the request withdrawn, please, and let it run the full length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The correct move, then, is to withdraw. As it stands, it very much looks like you were trying to get the crats to make a judgement call early. That really, really looks bad.→ ROUX ₪ 00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll endorse the withdrawal suggestion (Nach, as I opposed;). Barong 02:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't think the early close request is a big deal personally, it appears to have had a negative effect on your RFA, which, frankly, should have been pretty obvious. While some bureaucrats have discretionarily closed at this level of support in the past (I am called to mind Ryulong's promotion, which would be an unpopular precedent given his later behavior), even a liberal interpretation of the applicability of anti-recall opposes might be a difficult sell at this point. Andrevan@ 01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a discretionary close as support, I just wanted it over and done with. I'm quite aware that the 72% it was at at the time was very low, and there were far too many legitimate opposes to bring it much over 75% by discounting questionable ones. I was willing to accept the outcome either way, as the community had spoken clearly -- it was just left to the closing crat to summarize what they actually said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wanted it over and done with, why didn't you just withdraw? Surely you must know that the appearance of asking for it to be closed early carries with it an implication (or hope, perhaps) that such a close would be in your favour. Wanting it over and done with is nice and easy; you withdraw. Asking for a close keeps open the possibility that you would be (re)promoted. Whether or not that was your intention (and I'm willing to AGF enough that it wasn't), the implication is quite clear, and one would hope that admins would be more circumspect about appearances of impropriety, and more observant of how their actions appear. → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I know, that isn't what I meant. I'm saying since the post-request fallout, it has become less defensible to promote. Andrevan@ 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot yourself in the—wait, too late. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many people here know Sarek fairly well and are familiar with how he interacts with others. Some have described it as cowboy diplomacy, which seems to be the case sometimes. Certainly he must have been comparing his RfA to HJ Mitchell's, which must have been depressing. I'd just ask that people review Sarek's last few responses to his RfA and see if you feel anything is different (e.g. [11], [12]). What I noticed is that he had taken on a more compliant and somewhat defeated tone. Like somebody that had received a serious wakeup call. I believe it's been a (wiki)life changing experience for him. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 09:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an astonishing request. For the record, 65.8% of non-admins support (probably insufficient by itself to reconfirm); 75.7% of admins support. Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation. Clearly, non-admins bear the brunt of the trigger-happy blocking of established editors, and the wanton disregard of WP:INVOLVED. It is a sorry situation. Tony (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If one discounts the "oppose because it's a reconfirmation" commentary (2, 18, 19, at time of posting) - and franky even if one does not - this is very much in the discretionary zone (72%). I do agree this request for an early close was probably misguided but for Tony to opine that "Many supports seem to have come from the fact that this is a reconfirmation" without noting that three opposes come from the opposite camp is rather unfair. Of course I supported the "re-rfa" and Tony opposed so we're all biased. I just admit it. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• shucks, I'll run for RfA and the moment I get a single support vote and no opposes I'll come here and ask the 'crats to close it as succeeded. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  This is what people mean when they say people are misunderstanding the purpose of this request. The request (I believe) was made in good faith, saying that if a bureaucrat thought it appropriate, the request could be closed early, partially to get it over with and partially so that it could be closed without anybody having to wait after the point at which it was supposed to (which is what's currently happening). I see how one could easily interpret it as "I'm winning, better make sure of it staying that way <.< >.>", but this request doesn't seem like that to me. demize (t · c) 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Current percent: 72.1%. Percent when I volunteered for early close: 72.1%.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to close because I supported, so we need to wait for another bureaucrat to come along and take on the task. Andrevan@ 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Shocked - I was actually quite shocked when people took this close the wrong way. I had been watching the RfA and seeing how Sarek had changed. Look at the RfA, Sarek was being hammered, and by people he respects. My gawd people, he's not made of stone. I knew exactly what the request meant. He just wanted the hammering to be over with and that's all. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Yeah, I understand what you mean by that. Were I to do an RFA right now (which I'm not really interested in, I still wouldn't trust myself with those tools :p) I doubt I'd get very many any people supporting, and any of the people I've worked with often would probably oppose. That would hurt, and seeing people like that oppose/hammer you at a reconfirmation would hurt even more. demize (t · c) 22:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• So why didn't he withdraw? If all he wanted was for it to be over, withdrawal is the only option. Or posting here and saying "this isn't going well, can a crat please close this?' As it stands, the appearance, as I noted above, is that SoV was hoping it would be closed in his favour. It stretches credulity to believe that SoV is unaware of how RFA works. → ROUX ₪ 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But you, Andrevan, just closed HJ Mitchells's RfA, which you also supported. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ's wasn't in the discretionary zone; it was a clear pass. No impropriety there. → ROUX ₪ 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting impropriety, just a logical inconsistency. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I figured the words "and it's in the discretionary zone" were implied between 'supported' and 'so' in Andrevan's comment. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English, so let me explain as clearly as I can. Andrevan voted in HJ Mitchell's RfA and was quite happy to close it. He also voted in SarekOfVulvcan's RfA but declined to close it because he had voted. I have a word for that kind of inconsistency. Can you guess what it is? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, you're being insulting and attempting to draw me into a bloody stupid argument about semantics. Whee. There would be an inconsistency if HJ's RFA was in the discretionary zone. It isn't, so there isn't. Something something different circumstances something something. Whatever. Please grow the hell up. You know full well that I am a native speaker of English, you're just being a giant dick to win some Internet Points so you can level up to full-fledged troll. → ROUX ₪ 23:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright gentlemen, we're all adults here. Let's try to be civil. Andrevan@ 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Intelligent"? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Dishonest". Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no qualms about closing an RFA I voted in as long as it's uncontroversial (see Catfish jim and the soapdish from a few days ago, which I supported and promoted). WP:INVOLVED states: In cases which are straightforward..., the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. I see no reason why that same principle should not extend to closing RFAs. Andrevan@ 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But 87% (164/19/20) is well above the success figure in HJ Mitchell's RfA, whereas 72% in Sarek's is in the grey area, and that is why Andrevan should have, and did, recuse from making such a fine decision. In the former case, there was no room for exercise of discretion, as far as the numbers stood. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But bureaucrats commonly ignore opposes they don't agree with, and presumably supports as well, so one has to question the judgement of any bureaucrat who would both vote and close an RfA. But only if they were sensible and honest, agreed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

*goes for the NPA block button, but stubs his finger because it's not there*

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And hopefully you won't be able to repeat your antics. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I do not ignore comments I don't agree with. I rarely ignore comments at all for that matter. Reading of consensus is separate from one's own opinion. In the past I have in a bureaucrat discussion read the consensus in the opposite way from my opinion, for example Riana's RFB, where I opposed but supported a promotion based on the interpretation of consensus. Another example is Kww's 3rd RFA, where I opined that consensus supported promotion, but closed as no consensus per the bureaucrat discussion. Andrevan@ 23:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I would like to see some evidence of that. Of course the closing crat should take into account the quality of the !votes as well as their number, but when the numbers clearly show a consensus to promote, and there is no obvious vote-stuffing or fatuuous (!) reasoning, the judgement should follow the facts. I have no reason to believe that HJ Mitchell's RfA would, should, or could, have been closed any other way, by any crat, but in the grey area of Sarek's, there is clearly, as far as you are concerned, a risk of a perception of bias, and correctly, to avoid that, Andrevan didn't close it. If you took his !vote out of HJ MItchell's Rfa, it wouldn't have made any difference in the slightest, which (I believe) is why he felt secure in closing it per the clear consensus. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, but my conviction is that it is completely improper to close any vote in which you have expressed a preference. Where the Hell did common sense go? 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

There's "ideal" and there's "pragmatic". The difference between them is where common-sense lies. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)