Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Just a question

Is there some procedure for the bots of retired users? I heard bots need an operator, and this doesn't seems to met with a retired operator. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be covered by something over on Wikipedia:Bot policy. If it's not there, it should be. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If a user has left Wikipedia, their bots should not be operating. This happens occasionally (sometimes it takes awhile to be noticed), and is generally dealt with at WP:BOWN. This way we can normally find a new operator for the bot, and then block it. --Chris 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What Chris said, with the addition that sometimes bot ops prefer to be really really inactive (X! for the last year) and as long as they keep up the code, we don't care. MBisanz ^talk 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To add onto that, keep up the code and respond in a timely manner to any questions or concerns about the bot, which I think is covered in the bot policy as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of bot flag

Resolved

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Kumi-Taskbot, all approvals for Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs) have been revoked by the Bot Approvals Group. Could a bureaucrat outside the group please confirm and implement the consensus of this discussion, removing Kumi-Taskbot's bot flag? Thank you, — madman 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need, I concur and have further requested that access to AWB for me and the bot be removed per the communities apparent desires. If I feel like editing again in the future and access is needed I will rerequest it again. That way I can be reminded of how the zero defect mentality of the community has no tolerence for mistakes and editors trying to make improvements to the project and the request can be denied appropriately. As another editor recently called me, DIVA out! --Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems axiomatic to me that a bot with no approvals should not have a bot flag, so administrators can clearly tell the difference between authorized and unauthorized bots, and that the flag would be regained upon any subsequent task's approval, but I can also see how removing the bot flag might be seen as punitive. So it's up to whatever bureaucrat wants to review the matter (if any). :x — madman 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the bot flag. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (no sarcasm intended). --Kumioko (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for desysop

Hi there - I'd greatly appreciate my desysopping. While I maintain the propriety of every administrative action I have ever taken on Wikipedia (although I'll own up to a bit of incivility in my non-admin capacity!), I think it is time for me to hand in the tools and, to avoid any future disputes, self-declare that I'm doing so under a cloud. If anyone is wondering why, I just don't think the benefit the project and me get from me having the tools (which is pretty limited as I hardly use them any more) justifies the drama that I fear I'm about to be put through. Thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I reinstated the rights you had prior to becoming an admin (reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled). If you want those removed as well, just ask. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside, while I didn't investigate too deeply, I did notice your page literally seconds before it was deleted yesterday. (I started to look into the allegations and when I went back to the page, it was gone.) That being said, from what I saw, you had little to no fear of having your bit removed. Of course, somebody who has the name Balloonman sees absolutely nothing wrong with calling somebody the class clown ;-) I do, unfortunately, agree that since you are stepping down after somebody said they would initiate a recall process, that this is under a cloud.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing or supporting the under a cloud bit. There was a question of , what are your recall conditions from one user and I added my future vote if ever there was an admin action that warranted recall with my previous issues with the user, I would probably be one of the voters - but all of that is just speculation - the user has not done anything to warrant recall as I can see and he can't just declare it as under cloud himself when he may of been upset. I have only one current issue with him, and that is in relation to a non admin civility issue which is waiting at first base for a resolution if or when he returns. Its up to the crats to decide if it was under a cloud or not and I would have no objection if they were to reject his under a cloud comment. Youreallycan 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He has not requested the bit back nor has he invoked RTV, so this is entirely academic unless he requests the bit back at a later date. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is academic at a later date, but having the current thoughts on the subject will help refresh our understanding down the road should he ask for them back or undergo another RfA. I do put a lot of weight into YRC's statement above that he doesn't feel that this is leaving under a cloud, because my statement above was based upon a discussion I saw between the two of them. If YRC doesn't consider it under a cloud, I'm willing ot defer to him as he was more involved with the discussion that lead to this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The only cloud I saw was a Mare's Tail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'crat rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear all. Please note that I just removed the bureaucrat rights of user X! as he resigned a month ago (as an administrator and edit filter manager). Bureaucrats can't remove 'crat rights and besides that, you can't be a 'crat without being an admin. If you disagree with me, feel free to re-add his right. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is it in policy that you can't be a 'crat without being an admin? There is no requirement that the two go hand in hand. We've even had discussion in the distant past that it was technically possible to be one without another. That being said, it is probably ok, but I do think X should be asked.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

X! left a month ago and removed all the rights he *could* remove, which he can't with the 'crat rights. Therefore I thought this was non-controversial. But if the local bureaucrats disagree with me, they're free to re-add the right. It's technically possible to be a 'crat without being an admin, but usually it's not wished (besides, he resigned...). Trijnstel (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said not big deal... I wouldn't worry about it... just put a note on his page. If he doesn't contest it... nbd. But I did have to comment that you CAN be a 'crat without being an Admin. There is no requirement.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I left a note on his user talk. And again, if the local 'crats disagree, feel free to re-add the right. Trijnstel (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the removal of his rights, in the line of Balloonman's comment, but he clearly intended to resign his rights and it can always be re-added under policy, so this is the common-sense sort of interpretation of policy I want to encourage. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree Secretlondon (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much in agreement with the above. Technically, there is no explicit proviso against being a 'crat without being an admin, although the editor would have to be trusted not to grant the rights to him or herself without the appropriate RfA. However, X! clearly decided to resign, and any reasonable person would conclude he meant to have his crat bit removed as well, and had 'crats had the right to remove the bit, they likely would have at the time, so I do not see any harm at all in what Trijnstel did, and he was certainly acting for the benefit of the project as he understood it. Worse comes to worse, we can always add the bit back . -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• As a rule, I would prefer stewards not to act in that capacity unilaterally except in emergencies or when mandated for privacy reasons, but in this case, it's not controversial and X! has, unfortunately, clearly left, so it's not a big deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(non-bureaucrat intervention) Many have mentioned this in this thread, but with all the "buts" the message was not bold enough in my opinion. Regardless of the merits of this specific case, stewards have no legitimacy whatsoever for removing rights on this project outside of emergencies. The English Wikipedia has set up requirements and a stringent review process for its bureaucrats and other right holders, and the metapedians who are not duly vetted by this community should not be going around removing flags that are specific to this project. It sets a very bad precedent. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite, and Trijnstel has been reminded of this. Whatever the community decides about this particular issue, the steward policy should prevent it from happening in general. It will not happen again. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Imho there's no reason why bureaucrats shouldn't be able to remove the crat bit as well. No need to rely on outsiders when we have plenty of trusted local people that could take care of things like this. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If X! had wanted his bureaucrat bit removed, he knows how to request same at meta. Not sure why this was done in a non-emergency situation without local consultation. –xeno^talk 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't see why someone can't be a crat while not being an admin, I do think that a "Retired" note on a user page is sufficient reason to remove both crat and admin bits. These are, after all, merely functional roles that some editors fill, rather than awards for merit or ranks in the military. A retired editor will not be performing these functions and has no need for the bits. If X! returns (and I sure hope so), he can always ask for them here. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point we all agree, including the steward who performed the action, that it was an error. However, it was an error made in good faith, with the best interests of EnWiki in mind, it has no long-standing ill effects, it is easily reversible if necessary, and the steward in question has been informed of the error, understands it was an error, and wont repeat it. So, does anyone have any problems with marking this resolved? -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rights request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a 'crat move my admin privileges to my alternate account? I'm expecting to be less available for admin tasks for a while and right now I'm at the top of Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active, which means my talk page is often the first stop for people wanting admin assistance. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be to get a name change Z8byts... then you would be near the bottom of the list ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The ☂ account would still be at the top as there are no other symbol admins and I think that an unpronounceable username would be difficult for users to manage, What would we call you? Brolly??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also just remove yourself from that list. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's updated by bot and it doesn't look like there's an opt-out mechanism. — madman 16:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this would be a reasonable request to allow me to focus on bot work (which requires occasional edits to protected templates) without having to worry about my orange bar lighting up with requests for admin help that, due to recent events, I would like to take a break from handling. However, as this is apparently a controversial request, I withdraw it and will go with "Plan B". Peace, 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misidentified admins

Hi. I've been on a data validation kick lately, so I looked at uses of Template:Administrator topicon in the User and User talk namespaces where the user isn't actually an admin. I made a list here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=479765770>. I also included the script, in case someone wants to learn something. Some of these cases are edge cases (alt accounts of admins), but most are just wrong.

Why am I posting this here? Well, most of this mess was made by bureaucrats removing adminship due to user inactivity. I guess the inactive former admins are expected to come back to update their user and user talk pages themselves? Dunno. It'd be nice if someone could go through the list and remove the little icon where it doesn't belong. And maybe check the user and user talk pages for "I'm an admin" text and remove it as appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the topicon from 19 user pages, left the ones who belong to former sysops alone, the updated list is here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated lists here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480073988
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480074732

--MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of bit

I was desysopped back in November for being active for a little over a year. I'm planning on being around for a bit with some free time so would find use in the admin rights being restored. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Woot! Tiptoety ^talk 06:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Request desysopping of adminbots

As I've retires, User:MPUploadBot and User:EyeEightDestroyerBot can both be desysopped. If I wasn't decratted, I could have done it. But meh... (X! · talk)  · @889  ·  20:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename help

I know we're all busy volunteers, but I was wondering if I could get a few more crat or clerk eyes at WP:CHUS. I've been doing about 85% of the recent renames and don't mind, but sometimes I will ignore requests that seem iffy to me, hoping someone else will deal with them. Someone else dealing with them or at least commenting on them would be appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to swing by more often. Should the community be thinking about appointing a new bureaucrat? WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not making any promises, but I will try to get back to my Wikipedian roots. Some major things came up, doing serious damage to my attempted unretirement, but I think it's mostly straightened out, and I still have some things on my Wikipedia to-do list that I want to get to. That is not to say the community shouldn't be thinking about appointing a new bureaucrat, as I have no idea at this point (except I saw that X! unfortunately retired); I am mostly commenting as a means of self-motivation. Useight (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Or just abolish the entire rename process :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to help clerk WP:CHU and deal with malformed or inappropriate requests. (I'm not a bureaucrat and thus cannot rename users, but I am familiar with WP:UP.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I check my watchlist periodically. I work 9-6 Mon-Fri and in my free time I have my own backlogs of chores, work, and optional projects, so Wiki editing, CHU and such haven't made it onto the queue recently. Andrevan@ 01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick up some of the slack. Maximr 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been a bit sick the last while, and also really busy at work, which has limited my time here. I'll try to pick up more like I used to do. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming question

Don't want to file a WP:CHU yet, since I'm not sure if it's appropriate, and there's absolutely no activity on the talk page, so I expect this is a better place to ask a question. There's currently a thread at WP:VPR regarding the new automatic edit summary produced when a page is moved, and someone has asked what happens if the username is later changed. Would it be reasonable for me to request a temporary name change for my alternate account to see what happens? If so, I'd be requesting a second change (back to the original), and that's why I'm unsure of whether it would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean, the summaries are not going to change due to subsequent actions. If you want, we can test it on test.wikipedia.org, but I'm pretty sure that no, won't change at all. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessary. Andrevan@ 01:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Desysop

My wife downloaded some spyware to my computer and I don't have time to clean it (we're leaving for a road trip in about 10 minutes) and if I change my pass there is just as much chance that my password will be picked up by the spy ware. Therefore, I request a temporary desysop until I clean my computer and also if anyone sees any suspicious activity from either my account or User:TPBot, just block us both until I can sort it out.--v/r - TP 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to lock the account temporarily? (aka prevent all logins) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that we'll have no way to verify it's actually you to unblock it or re-sysop it, right? :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any way to verify if TParis would have control over the account, since the malware could easily infect the computer with a backdoor, rendering checkuser ineffective in determining who requested resysopping. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems fairly unlikely to me that anyone would use spyware for the purpose of usurping a wikipedia admin account. Much less so that they would request re-sysopping in his name. If they do we would of course find out when the real TParis contacts us to tell us so and we would be able to determine in that very unlikely case how to discern between the real McCoy and the impostor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It seem fairly obvious to me that nobody can know for what specific purpose, if any, someone would choose to install spyware. I'm concerned though about TParis's toolserver account. Might that also have been compromised? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the reason the Toolserver doesn't use passwords. It's much harder to compromise a private key than a password. — madman 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Much harder" isn't very reassuring. How much harder? Impossible? Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c, and it turns out I'm just parrotting Maunus) Meh. We can take his word for it, and if he starts acting weird we can panic then. If nothing else, he's likely to have emailed someone before. I hate to break it to everyone, but people outside Wikipedia don't consider having a Wikipedia admin account worth much; malware programs are after things slightly more valuable than the ability to block people from editing and see deleted pron. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While it is highly unlikely that the spyware was specifically targeted at obtaining unauthorized access to Wikipedia accounts, many spyware programs just save the username, the password, and the URL whenever a password control appears on a webpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But it is not a problem untill that happens. Temporary desysopping is more than enough of a safeguard.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody else notice that he has a committed identity right at the top of his userpage? That's how we verify it's him who has control, in the unlikely situation it's necessary--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well you just take the fun out of everything, don't you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • How very rude, I take offence to that--The Fun ^Police ;) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• What part of "I request a temporary desysop", T Paris - is difficult to understand? Youreallycan 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • None of the people who have replied are bureaucrats and thus cannot temporarily desysop TParis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Which raises the question, what are we all doing here? And a quibble: Snowolf could desysop TParis, he'd just get screamed at afterwards for violating enwiki sovereignty. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the original request, the User:TParis account has been de-sysoped. For transparency, this is most definitely not under a cloud, it is simply to fulfil a genuine request as a pre-emptive preventative measure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn you for beating me to it. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First time for everything...! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to take a moment to remind all the stewards wandering around that under the GRU, they have always been, and remain, allowed to remove sysop rights in both emergency and non-emergency situations. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the access. I'll explain real quick: My wife and I were expecting a 5 hour road trip with our two children. She wanted to download Disney movies for the drive that we could put on my tablet and she ended up installing software that included a ton of spyware. I uninstalled all of the software, but I didnt have a chance to run a virus scan. I'm actually on vacation all weekend so I'm going to run the scan now, but I'm going to wait until I get home to request the tools back. Last time I had spyware on my computer, random links started showing up on websites I was registered on under my account and on websites I maintained. That's why I requested desysop. I was concerned a spambot might use my account to spam and would bypass the spam filters. My toolserver account should not be in danger because it uses a certificate to connect and I havent connected to toolserver since the software was installed. Anyway, we'll see ya'all on Sunday.--v/r - TP 04:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

I know I said I'd wait until Sunday, but I uninstalled all of the software (8 programs installed with the one thing she downloaded) and the virus scan last night came back clean. I've changed my password and I believe my account is secure. If anyone feels the need to verify my committed identity, feel free to email me first but I'd like to go ahead and get the bit back.--v/r - TP 16:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, welcome back and thanks for your diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather start a small ^^ discussion on extra-caution than a controversy on lack of responsibility after getting my account hacked.--v/r - TP 16:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

crat needed

It appears an administrator has died, see WP:AN#Steven Rubenstein. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Self review requested

Please see Wikipedia:Administrator review/MBisanz 2 to help me become a better editor and crat. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pending Closure of an RfA

There's a closure of an RfA that is 50 minutes overdue. Someone please close it or I will.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,765,698) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

“ If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats, and all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience. ”

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup ... remember, RFA's and AFD's typically last "at least" 7 days ... not 7 days to the minute. They can run longer, if active (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz has closed the RfA. You can now relax. Maxim_(talk) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've closed it. But there was no need to worry over it being 50 minutes late and I would counsel against non-crats closing completed RFAs such as this, especially when they are not expired by a significant amount of time. MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh. Oops. It's in my nature that everything is executed in a timely manner. As you can see, it can sometimes be a little bit disruptive.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,792,624) 20:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Desysop

I would like to have my administrative rights removed. Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I read your userpage and hope you do reconsider down the road; the tools will be waiting here for you to reclaim them at your leisure. Thank you again for your service to the project. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

change user name

I want to change my user name frome espiral0 to espiral --Espiral0 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The proper place is WP:CHU, not here. --Rschen7754 19:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename request by User:Mbz1

This is a notification that a request as been filed on meta for a rename by blocked user User:Mbz1, specifically for this wiki. The request has been declined as no steward action can be done, but figured it might be worth notifying the 'crats here so that if you want, you can properly reply to the user. The request is on m:Steward_requests/Username_changes#Mbz1.40Global. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the instructions telling him to contact ArbCom are good. Any changes related to this account should go through them, first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what Arbcom says to him personally, I generally operate under the practice that I will rename a blocked user to a name like VanishedUserXXX if they agree to leave the project forever and agree that if we catch them socking, I will undo the rename. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many edits?

I call for my fellow crats help in weighing the equities and deciding if 158 edits is too many to usurp an account at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#Markvs88_.E2.86.92_Markvs. MBisanz ^talk 15:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If the request was with a view to unifying a global account, it might need careful thought. But as it's just to give effect to a user's choice of name, I don't think our policy allows this rename - the target has made many non-trivial good faith edits. WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WJScribe. The target has made many non-trivial edits. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a 'crat, but kibitzing anyway. I note that it would be a dubious precedent to set to suggest that one can get one's preferred, already-taken username just by making more edits than the name's original owner. It's like not getting the Gmail (or Hotmail, back in the day) address you wanted; just move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that this probably isn't going to change anyone's minds, but here's something to consider: this account hasn't been used in eight years. The phone company reuses telephone numbers all the time, and don't get me started about how many John Smiths there are in the world. IMO if one can never usurp an old name, Wikipedia is going to look like AOL in a few years when everyone has to use a number at the end of their name because every name has been taken. Maybe WJBscribe200 and Nihonjoe37 will agree with me some far off day. I'm assuming my request is dead though. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a phone company, and if you've ever had the previous number of a popular person, you probably will concur that we'd be much better off with them not recycling them. To my mind, it doesn't matter how long ago the account was used. It has a significant number of edits, would you argue that if I were to retire now, in 5 years somebody would have a right to take over my name? I hope not, when a contributor leaves, he leaves behind his contributions, for which we should be grateful for, they become part of this encyclopedia, this project that belongs to all of us. I fail to see how helping, then moving on with one's life is grounds for penalizing them by forcibly renaming them. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Snowolf1, I understand your concerns...and to which I counter, how many of those 158 edits from 8 years ago are still intact? Of course, there is no real way to figure that out except by hand, and I really don't care to do so unless it would make a difference here. It's also a good thing that there aren't any need for disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, since there isn't anyone in the world with the same name. Nope, once someone has a name, they're unique forever in history. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Snarkiness isn't going to get you anywhere, nor will it further your cause here. The policies and guidelines exist for a reason; if you don't like them, you are welcome to start discussions to try to change them. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nihonjoe1. Further what cause? My request was closed before it was even discussed here! And if this isn't the proper place to discuss this, then where is? The pump? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine your cause is trying to get us to go against longstanding practice. That's what you're asking to be done. As for the proper place to discuss something, it really depends on which policy or guideline you are talking about. Generally, you discuss them on their individual pages. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe37: Wow, that cleared a lot up, thanks! I should just keep talking here then? I see how that's going to change "longstanding practices", as no one's actually willing to even discuss the case *because* of the aforementioned longstanding practice. Don't worry, I'm not going to bother coming back, there's no point in talking to walls. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have cared nearly so much had the request been discussed a bit before just being dismissed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that what Nihonjoe is saying is that the proper place to discuss the changing username guidelines is Wikipedia talk:Changing username, not the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. — madman 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Inactive administrators

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators doesn't seem to have been updated for February. --Rschen7754 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find myself with far less time for Wikipedia than I have in the past. Someone else will have to pick up the inactive administrators task. –xeno^talk 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I think this could be handled by a bot. Everything up to the actual desysopping, of course. Identifying the users, leaving a message, and sending an e-mail are all easy. — madman 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea. If the bot can also keep the page updated, that'd be optimal. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why that page needs to be maintained by a Crat. You only need a Crat for the actual desysopping. Plenty of people were strongly in favour of creating the system - I'd guess one of them could be rustled up by a note at AN. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There were concerns expressed that a bureaucrat should handle the process to ensure the emails were being properly sent as there is no way to verify this. There was an offer by a bureaucrat to operate a bot, but I think they don't have time for this now. I think that it is fine if the bot is operated by a trusted user. There is discussion in the archives as to how it should operate. –xeno^talk 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point; the only way I could think of to verify the e-mail was being sent correctly would be to have it change the target to me immediately before calling action=emailuser during the trial; I could also set ccme while it's live. — madman 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the only issue is making sure the bureaucrat removing the permissions can confirm that emails were sent in accordance with the policy. Could the bot cc the bureaucrat mailing list? That would be an efficient way to record that emailed notifications were properly sent. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately when sending e-mail through MediaWiki, you can only Cc: the sender, and of course we can't send e-mail outside of MediaWiki as we don't know the admins' e-mail addresses. I could have the bot automatically post the copies of the e-mails it receives to the Web. (Or to the bureaucrat mailing list, now that I think of it.) — madman 17:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be a stupid idea, but would it not be possible to add the address of the crat mailing list as the bot's email address? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That would work in theory, and trout me for not thinking of it. But if someone e-mails the bot through MediaWiki, I'd probably want it to go to me (or if I need a password reset e-mail, etc.). That said, it's possible if the bureaucrats would feel more comfortable knowing that the copy of the e-mail they're getting is coming directly from MediaWiki (maybe we would set up a separate bot account). — madman 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One alternative might be for the bot to generate a report that includes an "E-mail notice" link for each inactive admin. Someone would then click that link, where the emailuser interface would have a standard preloaded subject and message body. the box to receive a copy in your e-mail would also be ticked. All that remains would be for you to click send - two clicks total per notice, with a report that lists the names and an e-mail for each to confirm that notice was sent. I know we can preload templates, and that some special pages can take input from the referring page (as with the Delete interface reading deletion reasons from a CSD or AFD template), but am unsure if the emailuser function can do the same. Might be a time saver, and would skirt the whole verification issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, target is the only valid parameter for Special:EmailUser. — madman 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't there a discussion about a bot for that already a way back? I'm pretty sure we had this discussion before...yep, here it is. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So, it looks like last time we discussed this, consensus was to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe. This time around, consensus so far seems to be to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat weild the actual axe. I have a suggestion, why don't we get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe? --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Echo... echo... echo.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dweller has me thinking; I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but wouldn't it be great to have a bot to do the legwork, but have a human 'crat wield the axe? -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds wrong...how about instead we let a bot do the legwork and a human 'crat wields the axe? ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

hacks off Dweller's head with an axe for displaying excessive rationality. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[stumbles around, tripping over things] --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest this is not the way to get ahead a head in life. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong. — madman 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, step one: See if this report looks right. User:Madman/Inactive admins — madman 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, but what do I know :D -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As it's nearing the end of the month, I suggest we group those who would have been eligible for removal in February (had they been notified) with those for March, and notify both groups at the same time at the start of next month. WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated the report accordingly (and copied it to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators so it can be worked on while I continue to play in my sandbox). — madman 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say 1st of March and not 1st of April? I could easily be mistaken, but all the previous request seem to work that way. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. This would be the report generated on March 1st for APRIL. Herp derp. I'll generate a report as of February 1st for March. — madman 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC) I have a triple espresso now and the report is correct (these two facts are related). — madman 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Step two: The bot has sent an example e-mail using the e-mail template to Madman (talk · contribs); it received a copy of the message and should have automatically forwarded it, with all headers intact, to wikien-bureaucrats so bureaucrats can confirm it was indeed sent. Can someone on that list confirm this? Cheers! — madman 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Confirmed by Hersfold — madman 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the previous discussion, I'm also going to set it up so any replies to the e-mail will automatically be forwarded to wikien-bureaucrats as well (unfortunately, there's no way to set a Reply-To header on the e-mail sent by MediaWiki, and as always the bot can't send an e-mail directly). — madman 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Madman, in the future, when you send an example e-mail, can you add a disclaimer in the Subject and in the beginning stating it is a test email for review purposes and not binding. Receiving an email titled "Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity" with the official email enclosed was a bit confusing. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Nice work!

Sure thing; sorry about that. — madman 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just checking in on this; is there consensus to trial a bot, perhaps on February 1st for March 1st? I can file a BRFA anytime, but in my opinion, due to the nature of the task, only consensus here can approve a trial. — madman 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead with the BRFA. I think it's clear we all really really support giving work to other people :) MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But only the legwork as a 'crat still should wield the axe :-P -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what?! I totally didn't get that sense from the discussion above; I'll have to change the whole thing. → Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13 — madman 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been approved for trial; one of the conditions was that the notifications' language make it clear they're being sent by a bot and indicate where to report errors. Do the following changes to the boilerplates look all right? — madman 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Email templates

email Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators for further details. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. This message has been sent by MadmanBot on behalf of the English Wikipedia bureaucrats. Please report any errors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MadmanBot or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. email Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity Further to a previous email, your administrator permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity before {$date}. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators for further details. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. This message has been sent by MadmanBot on behalf of the English Wikipedia bureaucrats. Please report any errors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MadmanBot or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard.

Talk page notes

==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. ~~~~ ==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. ~~~~ ==Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. ~~~~

Changes look fine. MBisanz ^talk 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates: The report ran successfully, though it ran under my non-bot account first, so I reverted and ran it again. All last edit values are correct, but for some reason some last log values are not. I went through all administrators' logs and confirmed they still met the inactive administrator criteria. Notification then ran successfully; all talk page messages were delivered and all e-mails were sent. The bot reported it hadn't sent any e-mails when it updated the report because it was looking for the incorrect result value for success; I updated the report manually with e-mails I'd gotten a copy of, either from MediaWiki or from the forwarding script; I can confirm the seven remaining users definitely do not have e-mail set, as I was watching the results from the API. The forwarding script should have been forwarding the MediaWiki messages to both me and wikien-bureaucrats; however, I only got a copy of one or the other. I suspect either Sendmail on the Toolserver being wonky or my .forward file being incorrect (I suspect the latter; I meant for it to deliver to both my normal e-mail address and the script but I suspect if was delivered to my normal e-mail address before the script was called it didn't bother with the script.) I'm hoping wikien-bureaucrats got all 28 forwards but if not, I can forward the 17 that they would have not received. This definitely will be fixed by the next round of notifications, and having confirmed that I believe next month this can be run fully automatically. Cheers, — madman 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The second batch of notifications has been sent out by the bot; all talk page messages and e-mail messages were sent successfully. The only bobbles were while updating the report, due to a typo, the diff link didn't include the revid (fixed), and I only came up with the clever idea of linking to a copy of the e-mail after all was said and done (hindsight is 20/20). All input on this trial is welcome, here and at the BRFA! — madman 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Again hindsight is 20/20, but a second check for inactivity should have been done before sending out the second batch of notifications in case some administrators were prompted by the first notification to become active again. Most were not (only responding to the notification on their user talk page), but those who were should not have been bothered a second time. My apologies. I'll update the code to do a second check for inactivity and remove administrators who are active again (either there's a recent log entry or edit to something other than user talk page). Update: Looks like this only affected Veinor; I removed the talk page notice. — madman 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Any further comments from bureaucrats? Are the e-mails accessible enough, is the operation of the bot acceptable given the notes above? Cheers, — madman 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm very satisfied with it. MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the bot has been very successful - thank you. WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with the inactivity policy, I have removed admin rights from 22 accounts today. WJBscribe (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping

Hi! I'm back after a long absence and would like to kindly request the return of my admin tools. My account hasn't been compromised in the interim, if that helps. If there's anything else I need to do before I'm allowed a mop and bucket again, please do let me know. Thanks so much! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back! MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! Now I'll get to work. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mabdul

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mabdul has gone on past its scheduled close. At scheduled close it was 75%. Currently it's at 70%. Wait a bit longer and I'll be able to close it myself. Josh Parris 13:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Josh Parris, the closing times are merely the minimum duration an RfA should run for, rather than an absolute point for them to be closed. In this candidacy, people are still commenting and changing their opinions, and I suspect the bureaucrats have left it open for this reason (someone correct me if I'm wrong!). In addition, the only people who should close a non-snow RfA such as this one are bureaucrats...it would be inappropriate for you or I to close it. Best. (For transparency, I opposed the RfA.) Acalamari 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh - this didn't save... Although this is not at least 12 hours, do you take in account the changes to the RFA after the scheduled end time? The Helpful One 13:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course all changes are taken into account - 7 days is a minimum. If consensus is still changing and discussion is occurring, there's no need to close (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming, typo fixed :) The Helpful One 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I checked... in my head. I got the maths wrong. I should have asked Google. Josh Parris 13:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it as unsuccessful. I didn't leave it open for any specific reason. I happened to be sleeping and don't know the motivations of the other crats. Seven days is the minimum and subsequent comments prior to close are taken into account. I recognize that this appears to have resulted in changing the outcome, but that is of course the risk the community takes by having a "7+ rule" instead of a "7 limit" rule. MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, 7 days is just a minimum - though we tend to close promptly (or formally extend the period) if around. For my part, I was available to close the RfA this morning but did not do so as I had participated. I suspect the delay resulted mainly from the two English bureaucrats who are currently most active in this area (WilliamH and me) being conflicted. WJBscribe (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asleep, and then had some other things which had to be done this morning before work. Then there was work, which I only recently got back from. So, that's why I didn't close it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a crat chat was needed in this discussion, as opposing for an April Fools joke when I counted about 50 different editors participating in this unfunny nonsense and I haven't seen all the jokes yet, plus some of the anti IRC clientele participating in that discussion which votes should discounted. If April Fools wasn't so abused by the community this year, and it been limited like years past I'm sure Mabdul wouldn't have been opposed for it. I'm baffled by the close. Note I haven't really been using IRC much lately, only for if I need to get an hold of an admin emergency, and I have limited interactions with Mabdul there, so I'm not an IRC buddy trying to defend it, just disgusted that it was a vote rationale. Secret ^account 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I had the same kind of reaction. While I initially opposed the candidate, the amount of nonsense in the oppose section simply disgusted me beyond belief. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 05:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It was no worse than the nonsense in the support section. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be disgusted by that vote rationale, however, it is not a prohibited or nonsensical rationale (nonsensical rationales would be "candidate is a woman" or "candidate speaks English"). It's merely a controversial rationale (like 1FA, children, etc). The fact it was voiced by several users is evidence that it is not nonsensical because it is not a view held by an extreme minority of participants. What part of the close specifically baffles you, as I could find no grounds for disregarding a valid vote rationale such as that? MBisanz ^talk 18:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How is "Candidate uses IRC" any more rational that "Candidate users email" as oppose reason... It's baffling. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them. It's baffling, but it's a problem to take up with the community instead of the crats. MBisanz ^talk 18:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand how this RfA could have been closed in either direction. Perhaps the "baffling" part is this: A crat is tasked with evaluating all views and establishing consensus. In this case it appears that the close goes beyond the individual task at hand (the RfA), but also informally is stating what a "consensus" is in regards to not only a "one day per year 'joke' April 1 event", but also whether or not IRC is an acceptable medium of communication. When you (MBisanz) say that "the community believes that administrators' use of communication tools is a criteria on which to judge them", you (in my view) seem to be establishing a consensus for such a criteria. I posit that it may be a "criteria" for some editors, but I hardly think it is for all editors. Yes, I do realize that you don't go so far as to say that IRC is unacceptable; but, I think you're getting dangerously close to that in the way you're wording both the close and your responses. Please note that I am not finding fault with the close - I think it is quite valid. I'm just suggesting that the wording is dangerously close to setting precedent for future candidates who may use IRC. — Ched :  ?  06:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The close on the RFA page didn't come close to implying this. It stated plainly ".....specifically those concerns related to IRC canvassing...". Leaky Caldron 13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, first I'll say that I've followed Matt's accomplishments for years now (a TRULY impressive young man), and I wasn't trying to find fault with the close itself. Second, perhaps it's more a matter of my inferring a stance on IRC than him implying such. Third, I honestly have very mixed feelings wrt IRC. I think it can be a valuable tool, but I also think it gets misused all to often as well. If you're open to it, I'd be more than happy to continue a discussion on your talk - but I don't want to barge in if you're not open to a chat. — Ched :  ?  15:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I've used IRC extensively for over three years. Second, I didn't mean to imply that use of IRC (or any means of communication) is unacceptable. What I meant was that some non-fringe minority of users at the RFA expressed concerns to Mabdul's use of IRC, specifically as it related to canvassing. You're right that the close of an RFA is a specific application of a general rule. The general rule is that if consensus to promote is not shown, a user will not pass RFA. In this case, three minority groups with valid viewpoints (IRC, April 1, and article editing) overlapped to create a lack of consensus (note the phrase lack of consensus, they did not create a new consensus with their opposition). I wasn't implying that there was now a consensus that IRC was bad, merely that a group of people found this candidate's use of IRC to be an indicator that he was not qualified at this time.

Also, since a lot of people have asked about this close, I'll take the opportunity to put my foot in my mouth. My philosophy on RFA remains what it was in 2009 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/MBisanz#Questions_for_the_candidate. That is, I'm strongly driven by the numbers, as indicated from prior community consensus. Also, in the RFA-arena, I have a very narrow view of bureaucrat discretion (it exists between 73%-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments). People have said crats should be more holistic in weighing the comments to mitigate the effects of poorly based opposes. I would agree that personally I do not see the use of IRC as problematic. But, just as I could see people opposing a candidate for merely being a user of 4chan, it is not plainly erroneous that a person would oppose a user of IRC out of concern that they are more suspectable to cabaling in private. If you want crats to actually discount poorly thought out but not plainly erroneous comments, then tell us that. Make it a presumption to promote unless the opposition shows actual defects in editing. That could then eliminate the balancing test because everyone passes unless someone shows specific evidence of where they were lacking. MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"73-75% after removing plainly erroneous comments?" My understanding was that the zone of discretion was 70-75, and could range further, especially if giving less weight to "weak" votes or if there was a clear trend in the debate. I can't recall a close of no consensus where the percentage was over 80% but had been steadily falling for the previous couple of days, or indeed the reverse, but I would hope that either would be seen as within crat discretion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The range is broader, probably 65-80, but 70-80 is the standard expression. However, 73-75 as discretionary would cover over 99.9% of all possible instances of discretion and I indicated in my RFB that I would be willing but extraordinarily unlikely to use discretion outside that range. I suspect I'm in the minority of crats there though. MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one

Hi, If someone would be so kind I'd like my admin bit turned back on. I seem to have regained an interest in BLP issues again, and I may have a use for the tools. Cheers Kevin (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back, MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MB! Kevin (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tools for User:Steve

Hi there. Please remove my access to the administrative tools. I'm stepping down for violating their recommended use (specifically, wheel-warring), so they probably shouldn't be returned to me until such time as I've successfully passed another RfA. My apologies to Laser brain and SandyGeorgia. Thanks, Steve ^T • C 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth (Non-administrator comment), I think there was no valid justification for the wheel warring and would suggest — as Steve already has in his request — that this removal would be under a cloud. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth—and for the avoidance of all doubt—I agree. Even though it had a very specific aim (apart from the simple act of unblocking), the reversal wasn't based in policy, guideline, or any other recommended use of the tools. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said at ANI, I think that you had to unblock Malleus was unfortunate—not necessarily incorrect, but it was under unfortunate circumstances—and I think you've done the right thing here to ask for the desysop. We need more admins like you (ironically). Best wishes, —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but having just looked over the situation I have to say it leaves me supremely unconcerned. I really don't see much problem here (and just yesterday I was thinking how stupid it is that nearly every time Malleus gets blocked he's unblocked before the block expires). I can see and understand the arguments on both sides, in this instance, and I can see how they both have merit. Maybe it's just because I seem to have an extra helping of empathy or something, I don't know. Oh well, like I said, checking out the situation leading to this post definitely gives me a "what, is that all?" feeling compared to how serious this post made it sound. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Steve's action, and I think the crats should reject this request for de-sysop as unnecessary. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Whether or not you support Steve's action, it was clearly not wheel-warring by our definition of the term, and I don't see any other factors that would make this desysopping "under a cloud" (involved, etc). Indeed, I would be minded to reject the request outright. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Steve's admin rights in accordance with his request. Although the question of whether or not he relinquished the tools under a cloud / in controversial circumstances is ultimately a matter of discretion for the bureaucrat(s) who consider any future request for their restoration, it is likely that the circumstances of this resignation will be found to necessitate a fresh RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Without prejudice to a future crat's review, I regrettably agree with Will. Even though I highly doubt Steve would have been desysopped for his action, it definitely seems like point two of WP:RESYSOP ("with the effect[] of evading scrutiny of their actions") applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

user:Centrx

Edited the main page followed by a series of rather strange edits. Needs to be de-admined until we find out what is going on.©Geni 07:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally crats can only act in the situations outlined by WP:B, and this doesn't seem to be one of those situations - I've emailed ArbCom so they can act if they wish. If the admin self-unblocks, and starts causing chaos, the stewards can be contacted, but right now it's not an emergency (it's difficult to unblock oneself). --Rschen7754 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Please compare Wikipedia:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions with Wikipedia:GRU#Stewards. Crats were both unavailable and unable to act in this circumstances, thus Steward intervention would be the only means of resolution. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Geni was sent here by the Stewards, 4 of us (stewards) felt no action on our part was needed, as the user did only one potentially problematic edit and stopped once told to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then even moreso that resolution stands, as the Stewards were the only users who should have been involved in deciding the situation. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, arbcom did it themselves [1] Hot Stop 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User has now been desysopped by stewards following a request on meta from the Arbitration Committee. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except in very clear emergencies (and we're talking "deleting the main page and blocking everyone in sight" emergencies), bureaucrats don't have the support of the community to act in these cases of their own accord. Stewards, also, will be very unlikely to act at the request of a general community member except in those cases. The Arbitration Committee is solely responsible for carrying out emergency procedures and authorizing one of these people to desysop someone. In this case, the Committee investigated the situation and found that an emergency desysop was needed to prevent disruption to the project, however the on-wiki actions of Centrx did not quite rise to the level needed for action without ArbCom approval. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the Main is not technically doable anymore :) In any case, from a steward perspective, unless the user is either clearly a compromised account (in which case an account lock is the appropriate measure, not a desysop which can be left for arbcom or local 'crats to take care of) or is clearly out of control and not containable by normal administrative instruments (ie the guy's self unblocks or keeps using administrative rights while blocked and causing major distruption that way, etc.), the Stewards are not the proper avenue. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, deleting the Main Page is still perfectly possible. You just have to know how to do it. :p (And if anyone cares, yes, I know how to that. But I'm not planning on sending us back four years). Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Resysop request

Please could someone resysop my account. I resigned as an admin back in November 2011 here uncontroversially as I needed a break. It's been almost 5 months and as I plan on contributing once more now, including some admin jobs, so I would like the admin bit back. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up garbage

(I am addressing this to the Bureaucrats since my question covers use of the Rename feature.) As we all know, offensive user names will sometimes spring up, clogging up the logs, and it strikes me that the policy regarding how to deal with these is rather ad hoc at the moment, and so would like some clarification on it. As far as I am aware, we currently have the following tools at our disposal:

1. RD2 log redaction (example i)
2. RD3 redaction (example ii)
3. Oversight
4. Renaming (example iii)
5. Locked (example iv)
6. Locked + Hidden (example v)
7. Locked + Suppressed, which I was told about on IRC – apparently it hides the user from all logs to all except Stewards, without itself leaving logs.

Now, my question is, when is each of these measures supposed to be used? As I say, at the moment it looks to me like the action taken depends on the whims of whoever notices the problem. More specifically, my questions are:

• Firstly, could I clarify what the difference between RD2 and RD3 is, with regard to offensive names? When is an account/page name one, but not the other? If they are interchangeable, perhaps we could reword the criteria to collapse them into one, or to move all offensive titles to one and malicious code etc. to the other?
• Am I correct in thinking that Oversight is never used in cases of offensive account names, or is it sometimes appropriate to request it?

In each of the following cases, which of RevDel, Rename, Lock, etc. is appropriate?

• General profanity, without an obvious target, but genuinely offensive/unpleasant to read: User:@#!
  • Edits on en.wiki only
  • Edits on more than one wiki (and the same question for the rest of the examples)
• Profanity targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_is_a_@#!
• Profanity targeted at real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_is_a_@#! / Fooians_are_@#!s
• Potentially libellous statements targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_sells_heroin
• Potentially libellous statements about real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_sells_heroin

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying that Oversight is simply Suppression, not actually Oversight, so it's just a step further than #1 or #2. I used to do #4, but realized it just created more logs that needed deletion. I think #3 and #7 are the best for libellous things (of either target) and #2 and #6 for simple profanity. MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd still like some more clarification. To take a concrete case, I have now RD3ed all the logs pertaining to example ii—click "(Logs)" next to the date and time of the linked-to log entry. (I realise this account was active a long time ago, but I think it will serve as a good example case.) Would you recomment (or would you have recommended, were this account recent) #6, #7, or neither? And, just to be clear, what would change were (a) #6 or (b) #7 to be applied? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, redacting the logs related to User:卍 卍 卍 (attack site URL) 卍 卍 卍 was unnecessary since that account was from 2006, and it is unlikely that anybody would be looking that far back through the logs. Additionally, it is impossible to globally lock or suppress the account since accounts that old do not have SULs (see this). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I say, I'm mainly using this as a test case for what one is meant to do when (and and I do not feel that this is an academic discussion—this was fairly recent, for instance); and besides, I don't see the harm in redacting the logs? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it was recent, I would have locked and hid it because of the potential damage from the attack URL. I wouldn't have done #7, as I understand that feature is still a bit buggy, but Snowolf is the expert on that. MBisanz ^talk 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But, as I say, if someone had already locally RevDeled all the occurrences of the user name in local logs (as I have done in this case), what would Locking + Hiding achieve/change? Alternatively, if these entries had not been RevDeled, would Locking + Hiding automatically RevDel them? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would hide it in the ListUser list, but not revdel its edits/actions. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Being ‘Unvanished'?

Hello Bureaucrats

I was previously Francium12 where I had about 10,000 edits before I requested a right to vanish after a period of disillusionment with Wikipedia.

I have since returned and now edit under this name where I lack autopatrol and any 'reputation' as an editor of good standing. Because of this much more of my content is now a) drive by tagged like hell b) put up for AfD. It has given me a rather scary insight into how Wikipedia must be for new editors...

Is there any way I can be "unvanished" under my old account as I realise I’ve lost the reputation I built up over a number of years - frankly it is a little frustrating trying to generate content on this account! I have also made 9 edits under the old account. I’m sure I’ve breached numerous Wikipedia policies in the process! Quickbeam44 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(nonadmin response) Hello Quickbeam/Francium. There are 3 issues here.

• Your recent article contributions being tagged. Based on a quick scan of your current talk page and some of those articles, I think the issue is that Wikipedia's philosophy has changed in the past few years. Your articles are around the boundary of what is considered notable, and our expectations of what is adequate sourcing right off the bat have increased from what they were a few years ago. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is reality.
• If indeed you are the vanished Francium12, then vanishing is supposed to have been final. You're not supposed to come back and put the mantle back on again when you feel like it. Vanishing is an exceptional measure for individuals who are not only "disillusioned" (who can just stop editing!) but who have stumbled onto some minefield where they really need to eradicate all traces. But then that's that, it's gone! You don't come back and revivify later and presumably there was a reason why you wanted the past buried. The process wonks may now either refuse your request or paradoxically rush to un-vanish you since you have actually not vanished and That is Not Allowed - regardless it shows you are rather confused about what you want.
• I think you're right that we make genuine new users feel a bit unwelcome by templating etc. But looking at your talk page you haven't been abused, you've gotten good advice, and some friendly and helpful (if probably semi-templated) advice. But it seems like you've continued to do more of the same rather than adjusting your behaviour. It's quite possible that if you were benefitting from an old-timer reputation, you might be cut a bit more slack. But the solution seems to be to modify your behaviour rather than try to exhume your reputation.

Though the above is quite harsh, welcome back and I hope you find a way to contribute where you will feel your contributions are valuable and valued. Martinp (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

An option for him would be to simply put a note on the top of his page that indicates whom you used to be with a link to said page. That being said, when a user returns---even after vanishing---I think it is better to allow said user to tie his/her old account to their new one if they so choose. A) It helps avoid allegations of evasion/socking. B) It is in the open. C) Think of our former 'crat who vanished, then came back once (possibly twice) with new accounts. While I suspect that most vanished users who return with new accounts succeed in keeping their old name secret, many will ultimately be identified. This is especially true for users with a jaded past. When that happens it often results in turmoil and nastiness. I would ALWAYS prefer openness. At minimum, even when coming back anonymously, users returning from vanished should notify ArbCOM of their past just in case.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another data point in support of the notion that we should rethink our RTV policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a problem with the RTV policy. Could you elaborate? Regards SoWhy 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, a big problem is that it's unrealistic: human nature is to change one's mind, and vanished users change their minds all the time, and we don't have an elegant or consistent way of letting them do that. Just about anything else in Wikipedia has a straightforward "undo" mechanism, but this is one that's "designed" not to be undone, even though in practice that's not the case. Vanishings are undone, but haphazardly and often with bad feelings from many directions. 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RTV is designed to be un-revertable because it's not supposed to be reverted. RTV means you're gone, for good, and never coming back, ever. To wit: Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. -- Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing

Realistically, the majority of the people who invoke the policy are those who have turned themselves into pariahs on Wikipedia, who don't want their malfeasance redounding to them in the real world. "This user has been banned from Wikipedia" is not a search result most people want coming back from Google. RTV is a courtesy we extend to remedy that.

If, as you say, it is human nature to change one's mind, then that's the best reason I've heard yet for completely eliminating RTV as inherently unworkable. Because we can never be sure that someone really is gone for good. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite honestly I'd support it being eliminated, since as you say it is inherently unworkable. There's no reason someone whose username is their real name couldn't be renamed the usual way, and any userpages they no longer want deleted the usual way. And if they want to stop editing as well, then they can just stop editing. There doesn't need to be an irreversible-in-theory, sometimes-reversible-in-practice "official" process for it. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't know for sure... even people who leave with the full intent to be gone for good can and do come back. Often via other names (ala the original poster.) As it currently stands, most of those people probably remain anonymous... does anybody really believe that Ecoletage/Pator Theo is really gone? Does anybody believe that Rlvese might not have a new account from which he's currently editing? Some people leave and want to start over for a legitimate reason. Some people NEED to leave for valid reasons (they used hteir real name or it got out.) But having a process that isn't ammendable to reality is short sighted. If a user that vanished returns and wants his/her old name to be associated with the new one, then what reasonable argument can be made to prevent it? "Oh no, you can't edit here, you vanished?" or "Oh no, we don't want to tie you to your past where you were a known vandal/FA contributor, because you vanished?" Those arguments are bilked with beaucracy. If a user returns and wants their old name to be tied to their new account, then we should ENCOURAGE that. The current RTV policy is good and well intended, but it needs provisions for the real world. (Marraige is supposed to be forever, but people get divorced all the time. Divorce is supposed to be the end, but divorcees get back together all the time.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually makes more sense to allow a vanished user to return under their old name if that's what they want. All we know about any particular editor is their editing history. The more often that history stays in one place, the better. If, however, the editor wishes to discard their history (or if, for technical reasons, the history is unrecoverable), then it's a different story. --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RTV (or "courtesy vanishing") acknowledges that people sometimes change their minds and come back and that in this case the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. The only change I think we should make to that is to change "will likely" to "has to be". If you exercise the RTV and then return openly, everything is reset to an "ante bellum" state, i.e. as if you never left. Also remember that Wikipedia:Clean start is already codified and you don't need to do anything when exercising a clean start, not even notify ArbCom, after all. There is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART, so I fail to see the problem. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting conversation, and many good and valid points being brought to light. In fact I would even encourage this thread as a healthy RfC at some point. (But perhaps here and now is not the time or place?). In my mind the few things that strike me are this: If we "invoke" or "cite" RTV as a hard and fast policy guideline, yes/no, black/white, right/wrong - then we basically eliminate humanity from the equasion. No room for error, no allowence for interpertation, and no ability for forgiveness. In that sense the entire RTV guideline almost takes on a paradoxical quality. In fact I find it outright ironical that 2 of the first 10 edits to this guideline are by a renamed user. If for instance we take a look at the guideline in, I don't know - just for a random for instance: October of 2010, vs. how it stands a this moment we see these changes. The paradox for me is that while we can say "YOU" can not change "YOUR" mind, "WE" reserve the right to change our collective minds and rewrite this guideline as we see fit - or perhaps "as we want to fit it to the circumstances".

In fact, I'll be so bold as to say that the very FIRST statement I read when coming to en.wp:

• Welcome to Wikipedia,
• the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

is a misnomer. The more accurate statement would be the free encyclopedia that anyone MAY be able to edit. with a list of parameters which are unacceptable. NO - I am not suggesting that we not have rules, indeed they are a must. But we kid ourselves in attempting to portray the project as an open and welcoming environment at times I think.

It seems that User:Quickbeam44 has stepped into a proverbial field of landmines here; and I can easily envision him/her sitting at home muttering a WTF. For the record I will say: I could easily get behind 28bytes thoughts on this. I think there are legitimate times where "vanishing" (if you'll pardon the use of the word) an editors history is the right and compassionate thing to do. I also would openly welcome back any editor who had a change of heart and wanted to return to constructively contribute to our "open" project. People grow. People change. People have life altering experiences all the time. I don't much care for those "good-ole-boy exclusive clubs". <deep breath> I'll climb down off my soapbox now for the time being.

Now, if one of our kind 'crats would like to revert User talk:RTV User 545631548625 to its previous state, then I would applaud such an action. Someone may want to ask if it would be possible to merge the Francium12 edits with the Quickbeam44 edits - or if they even wish that. (I don't know what is technically possible here). Regardless of what is done here today(?), Welcome back Francium; I wish you the best in your future efforts here. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There actually was an RfC-ish sort of discussion about RTV on the Village Pump a few months back. The upshot was that someone suggested eliminating RTV, someone else suggested making it enforceable by blocks, everyone talked for a while, and then it petered out without any consensus or closure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

1. We can't merge accounts, but we can use usurpation to get back to his old name, if he can somehow prove he is the old user (logging into the renamed account). 2. I have been criticized in the past and am in the minority of the crats in that I believe RTV should be flexible. Most crats seem to follow the policy that RTV is very different from retirement and if you invoke RTV, you can never come back. At least in the context of re-granting administrator rights. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

28Bytes probably made my point better than I could, but in my words 'never" is a long time. We allow editors to use a mechanism in the heat of the moment, to make a literally lifetime decision. But we can't even write a coherent policy. We say that " Vanishing is a last resort and should only be used when you wish to stop editing forever (emphasis added), then we talk about what happens if you return. SoWhy, you said " There is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART", but there is. Cleanstart is for editors not under sanctions or threat of sanctions, while we have allowed editors under threat of sanction to RTV. And return. I'd like to have a community discussion about how people can leave and return toth e project, and the conditions to be applied to each option, with only one caveat—that we never pretend that a request to leave forever is a viable option. We are better off if we design fair conditions for return, because the alternative is SPI hell.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, it's something that's granted to users "in good standing" on request. Someone who are under the threat of sanction or actually sanctioned are imho not "in good standing" and as such should not really be granted vanishing anyway. But my point is: Wikipedia:Clean start does not require the user in question to be in good standing; in fact, it explicitly mentions it as a way to remove your "bad" standing by restarting your account and keeping away from the things that sullied your reputation in the first place. The only time CLEANSTART cannot be used is when the user is actively banned, the account blocked or sanctions are in place (not that they are threatened by sanctions!). But even then ArbCom might lift sanctions to allow a CLEANSTART... So if RTV should only be applied to editors in good standing and CLEANSTART allows even those in bad standing to use it, there is no reason why someone vanished cannot exercise CLEANSTART. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I need a reminder on what the phrase 'in good standing" means. I'm aware of two recent RTV's; in neither case would I have thought 'in good standing" applied, but it is possible that Wikipedia has a definition contrary to the usual English meaning of the phrase. Moreover, if my understanding of (one of the rationales for) RTV is correct, it shouldn't be limited to those in good standing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to prove I am Francium here I am. What drove me away was what I felt was the increasing hostility to new content. I’ve been around since 2005ish when I edited as an IP and the culture of Wiki has changed dramatically in seven years.I loathe the increased bureaucracy (no offence!) and essentially I am an inclusionist stub writer (four article creations in the past 24 hours two dealing with the judicial institutions of Kyrgyzstan!). We can all change our minds can't we? Francium12 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat wondering...if your account Francium12 was renamed to User:RTV User 545631548625 then how are you editing from Francium12? Did you re-register the Francium12 account at some point after it was renamed? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Most likely through SUL. Graham87 03:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the vanishing, in carrying out the request, 'crat User:Hersfold laid out the procedure to request unvanishing, here. I would suggest that you follow that, by emailing from User:RTV User 545631548625. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied it's him and have gone ahead and done the unvanishing. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know you were once engaged to Claudia Schiffer Matt! Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Permanent

As I mentioned the last time this came up, the idea that RTV is supposed to be "permanent" (whatever that means, even blocks and bans aren't "permanent", but merely "indefinite") was the result of a WP:BOLD edit, and the rest has been seemingly merely "groupthink" since then. ("If the rules say so, it must be so...") There is no actual reason I know (save no individual being willing to allow it), that someone cannot come back after "vanishing". And as others have said above and in previous discussions. I would think that our policies and guidelines should take human nature in mind. We allow vandals to come back after having a change of heart, but not a vanisher? Please pardon me for saying that that is utterly ridiculous. We even have an WP:IAR policy to make certain that no rule is "set in stone" as it were.

All of that said, the easiest solution would be to split the concept of "vanishing" from the request to have userrpages/talk pages deleted. Two separate things, neither of which should "require" or "mandate" the other. (A request is just that, a request.) Neither as a demand by the editor, nor as a mandate by the deleter.

That and, claiming to vanish or retire should never be a way to avoid sanction. The "under a cloud" concept should apply to editors disappearing/vanishing/retiring as well. - jc37 01:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an extremely sensible approach. 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth (which may be very little ), I believe anyone who exercises an RTV, as opposed to retiring, has severed all ties with wikipedia, and thenew account, even if it is the old name, should not get any automatic privileges based on the old one. That being said, if someone can prove that s/he is the old account, then project members can make their decisions about that person based on the older history, so a new RfX may be easier to pass. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts Vs Sock Puppetry

Not a bureaucratic matter. MBisanz talk 13:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please could you notify all administrators that multiple accounts are permitted by Wikipedia? I was accused of Sock Puppetry and blocked indefinitely by Favonian for having two accounts, namely Lee McLoughlin Leicester and LeeMcLoughlin1975. Obviously, it is impossible to use these two accounts for sock puppetry as the usernames make it absolutely clear they are controlled by the same person. Don't treat this as an appeal to unblock my accounts, I'm not too worried to be honest. I just think administrators need to be aware that multiple accounts are allowed. Thanks, Lee McLoughlin 90.192.121.180 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, admins are aware of that. However, this shows that you weren't using them as per policy. Indeed, editing as an IP when your accounts are blocked is further evasion of a valid block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Yep, when you're using both accounts to edit-war, as you did here, that is clearly a breach of policy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure for a 'crat

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Rcsprinter123 2 is a couple of days over the week limit. Needs a crat to close. Thanks, Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping

Dear bureaucrats,

I received this message on my user talk page a few months ago while I was on an hiatus from Wikipedia. I'm back now. As the message states, I could ask here to have the administrative permissions back. Hence, my post here. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Desysop request

Please remove my admin permissions. It appears this is now the way admins can behave and the community has no problem with it, nor with them dismissing any attempt to call them out as cabalism. For the time being, I'm no longer willing to remain an admin in this climate. Not like I was really using my permissions, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, on hold for 24 hours . I'm introducing a practice from Meta that makes eminent sense. I asked Heim privately and he does not object to the delay. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, no problem with the delay. As the 24 hours are nearly up, I want to confirm that yes, I'm still going ahead with this. Right now I just need a clean break from Wikipedia (may use Wikibreak enforcer, too; haven't decided). As there shouldn't be any "cloud" in this case, I might be back for the tools later. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please delay this. I have just discovered a problem with my IP address and I might not be able to edit at all without the admin bit or an IPblockexempt, so I'll need to handle that first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears it's just going to be too difficult to manage this in my current location, so let's just cancel this request and I'll just use Wikibreak Enforcer to make myself stop using the tools. Sorry for the false alarm, and thanks for instituting the "on hold" system; seems to have proven itself here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping me with it. MBisanz ^talk 15:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Desysop Request

Hello, could someone please remove my admin rights and the bot flag from my bot? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this sucks! I don't know anything about why this is happening, but I am not happy about hearing it. Peace :> Doc talk 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done thanks for all you've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave. Btw, I restored a few pages you deleted as CSD#U1 does not apply to user talk pages. WJBscribe (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I broke something . . .

I didn't think it would work, but I tried a renaming User:Kumioko at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Request_to_reset_password_for_a_locked_account_with_no_Email. He had 300,000+ edits and somehow it went through. I locked the database and I am seeing some absurd watchlist replag. Why did this go through? What sort of damage did I manage to do? MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that the only "damage" done is the replag caused by the job created in changing the 300,000+ (which is probably closer to a million) instances of User:Kumioko in the database (and considering the fact that I'm posting this at all, 30 minutes after you posted, suggests that's the extent of the problem so far). Regardless, I'd jump on the wikitech-l and/or the irc channel to have someone double check things, if you haven't already. Something in code is definitely broken if that went thorough though... wow! (actually though, did it go through? I can see his log... the change name entry is unlinked for "Kumioko (renamed)", which seems weird. And the replag is gone now, on my end. I see that Kumioko posted in reply, in the thread on Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Request_to_reset_password_for_a_locked_account_with_no_Email.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it went through, that's how the rename log is set up, with the second instance not linked. The IRC channel reported the absurd replag, but no other problems. No explanation of why the limit was removed in the code though. We'll need someone who knows how to navigate the code changes better than I do. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the code is part of mw:Extension:RenameUser. I trawled through the change logs for a few minutes, going back a few months, and didn't see anything obvious. Reedy (talk · contribs) is probably a good choice for someone to get in touch with for help with running this all down.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The limit was removed here. By the way it is not possible to lock the database. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is, I've done it a couple of times on nlwiki :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely got MediaWiki:Readonlytext when trying to edit after the rename, but thanks for the link to the change. I will update our guideline. MBisanz ^talk 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Account compromised

Resolved

 – ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My user name, User: Kazari, has been compromised.

I would like the new one I created, Kazari2, to replace it. I have a history back to 2005 and I'd like to keep it. Is there a way for me to prove I'm me? --Kazari2 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the account. Did you have an email set on the old account that you had ever used via Special:EmailUser to communicate with other editors who could identify you from it? Do you know any other Wikipedians in real life who could identify you? MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Being that the account is compromised, the compromiser may not changed the e-Mail of the account yet. MBisanz can send an e-Mail to the compromised account with some phrase, if Kazari2 gets, s/he can post it here to verify original ownership but this would need to be done now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I emailed him stating a fact that only the recipient of the email will know. If Kazari2 can state that fact, that will prove those accounts are under common control. It will not prove the current person in control is the original person. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't get anything. I tried resetting the password several times, so I think the compromiser must have changed the email address (or I didn't set one, which seems unlikely.) What bothers me most was that he/she was blanking pages I had edited in the past. --Kazari2 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty then, do you have any way to prove you were the person who used to control the account. I see you edited American Society of News Editors extensively. I would even settle for an email from an @asne.org address as proving you are Kazari. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, my idea was worth a shot. Sorry it didn't work out as I hoped it would. My only other suggestion is to have a checkuser confirm that someone else is using your account and that you are using the IP that your original account also used. If the range intersects, that can be used to identify however, WP:CHECKUSER stats that you would need to give permission for such an identification. Would you approve of a checkuser doing this? Would you accept this as enough evidence MBisanz?—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I explored that venue privately and it was inconclusive. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're not a checkuser.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I contacted a checkuser and asked them to review the situation and indicate if the two accounts were historically owned by the same person. They indicated it was inconclusive. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is a setback from owning dynamic IPs. Where the ranges at least compliant because if not, then there's something else going on. Either way, I'm beat and heading to bed. I wanted to be on a wikibreak but it seems to be difficult to keep my self on it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 02:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Where would you like the asne.org address to send a verification? I can get this done tomorrow. --Kazari2 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can send it to mattbisanzyahoo.com. I will not reveal the email to anyone else. I'll rename you to your old name when I get the email. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have received the email validating his identity and performed the rename. Apologies for the difficulty. MBisanz ^talk 16:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

e - mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Celticmadhatter (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Help

I've requested vanishing of two doppelgangers of mine accidently, when I mean username change. Could someone rename the two doppelgangers but not vanish them? Also, remove the emails? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If the emails were sent to some bureaucrat address, then they don't need removing, they just need not acting on (which I assume the first part of your request here would take care of). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also asked MBisanz (he recently made an edit) on his talk page. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done by MBisanz (talk · contribs) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

Hi, I'm back from the world of the dead I guess. Can I be resysopped, please? :-) Thanks. Regards, Húsönd 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. WilliamH (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)