Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

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 an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks

RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 22:28:13 on June 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Re-admin request InShaneee

Hello, I was just told that my admin rights are going to be permanently lost if I don't manually request them restored, so I'd like to do so in the hopes I can find time to get back to work soon. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure your resysop is a mere 23 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: you made one edit here in the last five years, namely the edit to request your admin tool back. Why would you suddenly need to use the admin tools and are you aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in your preceding five years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, but also noting that ArbCom did not desysop and that was roughly 6 months before editor left altogether. --Rschen7754 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. My question notwithstanding, I feel uneasy about this resysop given the unanimous conclusions of Arbcom "back in the day" about inappropriate behaviour as an admin. Back then, a ten-day suspension of sysop ability would these days most likely equate to being removed of the bit, more importantly the behaviour of this editor was noted as exhibiting "substantially similar previous behavior" which "was discussed at length by the community" which revealed " the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them"..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like "a cloud" to me ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, part of the sanction was "InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days." I count 41 edits after that Arb hearing, scattered over a few months before leaving. I will leave the interpretation up to the Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, I have been periodically reading what's been going on behind the scenes over the last few years, so I'd like to think I'm still pretty up to date. The reason I'd like my privileges back is because, as my edit history shows, most of the work I did here was simple reversions from the 'recent changes' list, uncontroversial speedy deletions, and other 'mop' type activity. I had always planned to come back after a break (and had been told that wouldn't be an issue), so when I do come back, that'd likely be where I'd want to pick up at. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a no from me. Other 'crats may see if differently, of course, but I can't see the purpose in re-promoting this editor based on no activity for five years and a cloudy past including admonishment from Arbcom (albeit back in the day). Suggest the editor submits himself to RFA, like other candidates, so the community can assess his ability in the current climate (i.e. understand the five-year gap and whether or not the editor meets current standards). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading WP:CLOUD is quite enlightening in this case. I quote:

A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as appropriate to resume the role at will once it has become "stale".

The concern also arises because resignation may be seen as having resolved the issue and therefore the matter may have been dropped by others rather than examine an issue that is no longer in need of remedy.

Accordingly a user who steps down in such a way that it seems they have evaded their conduct being actually assessed by the community, or their fitness to the role being affirmed, may be refused the right to automatically reclaim that role later without going through the usual process again to confirm they do in fact have the community's trust.

Given these definitions, InShaneee does not meet the definition of having resigned under a cloud. The resignation was not before the user's conduct was fully examined, and was not done to evade assessment of their conduct as the Arbitration case was completed. If InShaneee had remained active then they would likely still have their administrator rights. As such, do we have the right to decline the request? I do not know the answer to these questions yet. I will need to think more about this issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well rather than just blindly following the guidelines, I'm suggesting an editor with no edits for five years and who had an Arbcom case admonishing them for dubious admin behaviour in the past is not a suitable candidate for immediate re-sysop. If this is the kind of candidate we blindly re-sysop "per policy" or "per guideline" then we've got it wrong. How can the community have faith in this kind of candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm "blindly following guidelines" when I quite clearly stated I've not even made my mind up about what I think is the correct course of action yet. All I was doing was giving some points for consideration. That is allowed, yes? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be a little careful of how these essay (not policy) pages spring into existence and who edits them. That pages contains some sensible points (and some less sensible points IMHO), but is basically one contributor's viewpoint and is far from an exhaustive account of the factors that have been (or should be considered) in these cases. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my fault, I didn't mean to single you out here, my apologies. I meant, instead of "us" (i.e. crats) blindly re-sysopping, this case seems more contentious than most. I see no good reason to resysop someone who hasn't made a single edit in five years but suddenly gets an email telling him he's not going to be an admin any more, just for him to show up here asking for his bit back. When we rename people, we often ask questions like "are you sure you won't edit on behalf of others" or "are you sure you're not editing with a conflict of interest", but with this resysop process, we're just saying, sure, after five years without a single edit, you can just become an admin again. Seems anomalous. I would like these candidates for re-sysop to dedicate themselves to some kind of editing, rather than just give them the admin tool back after five years of inactivity barring a single edit to say "I need it back....". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair point. I need to think about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the e-mails sent out for were that exact reason: to notify of the impending lengthy inactivity policy going into place on January 1 and to see if they were interested in the tools being restored under the former process (with the 24 wait, now). On that note, I would be very weary of a resysop in this case, 'crats. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Weary or wary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo, sorry. Being wary can make you weary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this a very borderline call. On the one hand, I lean in the same direction as Rambling Man - inappropriate conduct leading to sanction followed by extended inactivity sounds like controversial circumstance / under a cloud if those words are to be given their natural meaning. On the other hand, I can see the argument that the "controversial circumstances" having been investigated and found to warrant a temporary (not permanent) removal of rights, it would be wrong for that decision to be second guessed because the inactivity of the user allows bureaucrats to do so. That doesn't necessarily strike me as what's happening here. I think the key question is: does the ArbCom decision "cleanse" the misconduct such as to prevent us weighing it in the balance when considering whether to restore the tools? On balance - I don't think it does. As I understand it, restoration of rights without RfA is meant to be available to administrators in good standing. Refusing to resysop without RfA is not a bureaucrat imposed sanction, it simply reflects our assessment that the circumstances in which a user left / became inactive were controversial such that the question of whether or not rights should be restored should be referred to the community. This seem to me to be such a case - notwithstanding the temporary desysop, I do think InShanee stopped editing in controversial circumstances. It therefore seems best to err on the side of caution and let the community decide at RfA, but I think input from other bureaucrats would be helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WJBscribe excellently conveys both sides of the decision. I think ultimately we should AGF and think that the inactivity was not from the ArbCom case. I would ultimately say to resysop through AGF and go from there. They can always be desysopped through ArbCom case if they prove to misuse the tool.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this for quite a while, I'm leaning towards agreeing with WJB here. I think that given the nature of the situation, RfA is the best bet. This is not us saying declining to resysop, it is us saying that in this case it is not up to us to decide. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after seeing Jreferee's request, I decided it was worth sending emails to the people I had Mabdul notify earlier this month about the change in policy; that's why the latest requests are here. My take is that the community does not want us acting with discretion in resysopping requests. The presumption is that a user can be resysopped unless a prohibition applies. The prohibitions are:

1. User has been inactive for three year period of time which includes or is subsequent to the date of desysopping (details vary): InShaneee filed this request prior to the expiration of the prior policy
2. User resigned the tools in a manner so that it appears he did so to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR): InShaneee's conduct was scrutinized by Arbcom and his conduct subsequent to the case does not indicate he left to avoid further scrutiny
3. The reviewing bureaucrat is not satisfied that the person requesting resysopping is the original owner of the account or that the account's security has not been compromised: No one has questioned InShaneee's identity
4. Subsequent to desysopping, the user engaged in conduct of an extreme and egregious nature such that no reasonable person could doubt they would have been desysopped should they have done it while an admin (socking, severe copyvios, etc.): InShaneee made no edits subsequent to his desysopping for inactivity and no other bad acts have been alleged

Based on that analysis, I don't see on what basis we can deny a resysopping. We don't judge admin behavior, that's Arbcom's job. We only judge if a person resigned to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior. No reasonable person could find that InShaneee resigned or went inactive to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior because Arbcom actually reviewed their behavior. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• What if all the Crats have looked at it and have simply decided "I won't say no, but I can't say yes"? Would the request eventually be closed out simply due to an unwillingness of a sufficient number of Crats willing to openly approve? Are Crats obligated to give a definitive opinion if they have commented? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis here, and I think a member of ArbCom (or a couple) should comment here about whether InShaneee should be resysopped or not. It's clear that the crats disagree in this case and emotions are high, and its not worth all this drama. Secret ^account 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What drama? This is a very calm discussion. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What Deskana said. I don't have an opinion and don't see that it would be helpful even if I did here. My questions weren't rhetorical, I am genuinely curious. And this is outside of ArbCom's scope anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe drama is a poor choice of word, I'm trying to say to keep emotions low and one resysopping isn't worth so much discussion. There been way too much scrutiny on the bcrats lately and I don't think this is a case to have a long discussion over considering the circumstances. He became inactive after a RFAr over four years ago and had a RFC prior on the same concerns, I think it is one of these "exceptional cases" ArbCom should mull over to resysop or not, and not worth fighting over. Secret ^account 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it is a very interesting, calm and productive conversation from my reading. Arbcom doesn't have the authority to give someone the admin bit, only Crats do. And as we have learned through my previous learning experience, Arbcom has no authority to review the Crats decision unless there is some misconduct by the Crats, and there certainly isn't. I think you are misreading this thread Secret, this is exactly how the process is designed to work, and it is working quite well: no rush, honest discussion, thoughtful review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be that the crats as a group owe it to users to decide on matters the community has entrusted to them. To simply fail to conclude on a request would be a abandonment of their responsibility. Also, I don't know why an Arb opinion would matter here. I don't see any possible question of user misconduct or uncertain identity, which is what Arbcom handles. As a practical matter a decision will occur because I'm willing to resysop and intend to do so after the 24 hour period unless another crat says they intend to make a decision to the contrary at that time. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Crats are required to act. There are very few circumstances where an editor, regardless of permissions, is specifically expected to act. The right to not act is essentially a soft form of WP:IAR. I think it is acceptable for Crats, or anyone else, to say that while policy dictates a specific action, 'I personally do not feel comfortable performing the action, and will leave it for others to act.' If no one can be found willing to carry out what policy calls for, it suggests the policy is sufficiently flawed that it needs to be fixed. That said, I agree with MBisanz's analysis above, (I'm not sure when the 3 year rule kicks in, but no one has claimed it applies here), policy dictates a resysop, and if MBisanz is willing to act, I also see no problem with that. Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree no person is required to do anything on Wikipedia, but I don't think a group (crats, admins, etc) should be allowed to collude to shirk avoid fulfilling a function they were entrusted by each of them individually claiming they were uncomfortable making the specific decision. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't endorsing or even referring to colluding here. Colluding to refuse to resysop would be passive-aggressive, and distasteful. The "I won't say no, but I can't say yes" did seem to be a common theme that I took as sincere from all concerned. I've simply not seen that situation here before so it begged the question, which I think you've answered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it; that's simple. Crats are elected in part because of their individual history of not getting into fights. One way to not get into fights is to not actually say an opinion, but rather express an initial view and say you're open to more discussion. If you look at old crat chats, they're basically in the same form. I suspect it's a selection effect of the high RFC threshold. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this one, I think that one or more Bureaucrat can sincerely say "I just don't know." and mean it, which could lead to the situation I described. From your responses, I basically deduced the answer to my questions to be "Bureaucrats as a group don't have the luxury of not making a decision, and at least one must make the final call.". There is no "do nothing at all" option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, if we're going to be such a small subset of the community because of the trust required, I don't think we can, as a group, avoid fulfilling the functions the community has given us. Part of this is deciding these decisions. If we want to be seen as legitimate delegates of a community function, we can't shirk the responsibility when the going gets tough. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to correct TRM's assumption about the ten-day suspension. It wasn't a mask for tool removal or any such thing; we desysopped plenty of administrators back then and if we thought he deserved it we'd have done so. The incident in front of us just wasn't all that serious by itself. Administrators make bad blocks all the time; if he hadn't blocked a user with stout friends it never would have come to arbitration. Having come to arbitration, we inevitably passed a remedy but it wasn't much. We deliberately did not desysop him, and we could have. I don't know if that helps your deliberations. Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that none of the current arbitrators (either the 2012 arbitrators or the 2013 arbitrators) were part of the Committee that decided the InShaneee case in 2007. I do remember the case from the time, however, and I think it is clear that if the Arbitration Committee had thought that InShaneee should be desysopped and compelled to undergo a new RfA to become an administrator again, they would have voted that remedy. When the case closed with a 10-day suspension remedy, and InShaneee requested and was granted the tools back at the end of the 10 days, that was the end of the matter. At the time InShaneee became inactive, there were no remaining disputes open regarding him, and so from the perspective of "under controversial circumstances" or "under a cloud," I think under the current policy he is entitled to reinstatement. :

Of course, quite independent of the arbitration case, it is debatable whether an administrator who's been inactive for almost five years should be entitled to be reinstated on request. I personally have mixed feelings about that subject, but on balance I think our experience is that most of old-time administrators who came back from long breaks and reclaimed their adminships have used resumed their use of the tools in a cautious and responsible fashion. But the community has recently discussed this at length, and the consensus was to change the policy—but also to build in a grace period before the new policy took effect, for those who returned and requested adminship back before the policy change took effect. For better or worse, it seems to me that InShaneee and the others posting on this page fall into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and resysopped per my analysis above. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so much for discussion and consensus. Four bureaucrats have commented on this request. Two of us (Rambling Man and I) determined that resyop without RfA was inappropriate. A third (Deskana) expressed the view that he has leaning to agreeing with us. You then posted an analysis that came to the opposite conclusion and, without getting input from other bureaucrats or discussing it further with ourselves, you decided to proceed on the basis of your own analysis. Pleas explain. WJBscribe (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So this is what happens when I leave a discussion alone for a day? How disappointing. Perhaps the term "bureaucrat team" should be reconsidered, because I see no team here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

To me the recent events, both on the Polascribe matter and more recent ones seem to show that maybe we should be holding some confirmation RfBs. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A motion of no confidence in the team. Re-confirm them all? Start now in the early hours of Christmas. Close early New Years Day. Won't the editors with life-Wikipedia balance be surprised when they return? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

When all the bureaucrats run reconfirmation RfBs at the same time... who closes them? Hah, that's actually a pretty funny quesiton. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

TRM has said later that he isn't as a crat when he's asking these questions and he's stated things in this thread which presuppose a resysop will be granted. Deskana, among other comments he made, indicated he did not think InShaneee was under a cloud but then later said he thought we should not decline and not resysop. WJB, you said you wanted more input, which I and others gave. Subsequent to both your and my comments, Mackensen and NYB provided probative evidence regarding the state of affairs that existed at the time in question, which, combined with my own analysis and the other comments, I found warranted resysopping after the 24 hour waiting period. I've always thought the resysopping process involved a crat making a decision in the same way an RFA or rename involves a crat making a decision; they consult with other people, but at the end of the day, any errors in the resysopping (like if it's premature or the crat has a conflict) are the resysopping crat's responsibility. I asked if anyone felt strongly enough otherwise that they wanted to issue a decision that he should not be resysopped, but no one did. I value the collegiality of the crat team, but I've never thought of resysopping as a group decision in the same way a crat chat is. I've also commented further on my talk page to WJBscribe specifically. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say Mackensen's comments have alleviated my concern that a grave mistake was made by resysopping InShaneee. I wouldn't say his comments made me think that we made the right decision by doing it, though. I'm still particularly disappointed that you took action when we were still discussing it. But I guess there's no point in me really thinking about it anymore... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I echo Deskana's disappointment. If this was not a "group" decision, then it appears to have been an individual decision to overrule two other individual decisions. That's not the way we do things. WJBscribe (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed by the unilateral decision but from the sounds of it, I confused MBisanz into thinking I agreed with a re-sysop. I think the closest I got to that was to say that procedurally the resysop would most likely go ahead. I don't recall being any more positive than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing this wall of text, I find myself leaning toward MBisanz's assessment of the situation: I don't see that he left to avoid further scrutiny, and what scrutiny there was fairly small potatoes and didn't rise to the level of "leaving under a cloud". While I can see some valid arguments on the opposing side, I don't think there is enough there to prevent the return of the admin bit (again, based on MBisanz's assessment, above). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same boat as Nihonjoe; I would've been supportive of the repromotion. I do think that we don't need to be beholden to the 24 hour countdown from request to restoration, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I support Matt's decision and would have come to the same myself. We bureaucrats are not ArbCom lite. There are many admins in good standing who have had ArbCom remedies placed on them in the past; when the remedy is filled, the user is reinstated back in good standing unless they exhibit behavior which indicates the remedy was ineffective, and in this I believe I respectfully disagree with Will. In this case, the user left in good standing, and thus continued with my perception that asking for tools to be removed does not mean the person stops being an admin but is taking a vacation (EXCEPT in RtV cases) and thus tool restoration in this case was warranted, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. FWIW, I have no issue with people reaching a different conclusion to me or necessarily with the outcome - just how we got to it. This discussion should have happened before anyone acted. WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#January 2013

As of January 2, the following should be desysopped per the inactivity administrators policy:

• ClockworkSoul (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• CloudNine (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Dsmdgold (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Jtdirl (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Kakofonous (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Lifebaka (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Qwghlm (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Redwolf24 (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• The-G-Unit-Boss (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• UberScienceNerd (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if there is any paperwork I missed. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow that sucks. We lost 10 here and only promoted about 8 in the last 4 months. Not counting the ones we lost over the last 4 months. I hope this trend doesn't continue or Jimbo might need to grab a mop and bucket and help out at AFD! I just looked and if I include February 2013 we lost about 49 and only gained 8 since September, plus the 2 or 3 we might get this month. Thats a 4-1 loss. Yikes. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worse for the whole year of 2012, don't look (for your own sake). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember that none of these admins edited in the past year, so it's not as though we lost a net 2 admins. (X! · talk)  · @168  ·  —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is important to note that despite it not effecting active administrators in that sense, we still lost around 70 admins total from 2012 to 2013 (it would have been more, but the long-term inactive policy drove quite a few administrators back). Regardless of how they were desysopped, or how active they were a month ago, any year where we desysop more than we promote is bad. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is another perspective here. According to my own magic numbers, between December 2011 and today there was a 7.2% drop of Registered active users; in that same period, there was a drop of 4.0% in the Sysop group. To be (mathematically) equivalent, the Sysop group would need to drop by ~109, not the 61 it actually dropped by --Senra (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly you are measuring total admins rather than active admins, and when it comes to issues such as whether we have sufficient people to do various things the active figure is the more relevant one. Secondly the expected pattern in a maturing and stabilising community is that as the proportion of newbies falls so a rising proportion of our regulars would be admins, and we should be in a "too many chiefs" situation but clearly aren't. Thirdly the critical minima for the admin corps include our ability to cover key admin functions at acceptable frequency. That means a 24/7 coverage at AIV; Many other areas are less time sensitive, it wouldn't be a problem if all AFDs were closed in the US evening - but our minimum need for admins is linked to the times we need coverage for as well as the amount of work we want our admins to do. Arguably it is also linked to total editing levels, I suspect that it isn't closely linked to the number of active regulars as hopefully they won't be vandals or even creating articles that merit deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Large usurp

I wanted to bring this particular usurp request here for wider review. The requesting user owns the SUL to it, has 7,000 edits on de.wiki, and has 2,000 edits on en.wiki. The en.wiki target user has 5,500 edits, but has been blocked since 2008 for abusing sockpuppets. Also, the contributions' history shows the blocked user made an edit to another person's talk page in 2009. I believe that edit was imported from de.wiki after the block was made. While I know we generally don't permit usurps of this magnitude, I'm inclined to grant it because of the requesting user's history of positive contributions, his ownership of the SUL and the target user's indef blocked status. But I'd like more opinions on the matter. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I too would be inclined to grant it. Attribution will maintained even if the name of the blocked user is "Griot (usurped)". -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with this usurpation happening. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Make that four of us. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be finding myself regularly in a minority these days, but I think it worth noting that I would decline this request at this time. The user in question has made good faith contributions to articles on this project that are unrelated to the reasons for it now being blocked. It seems to me rather different from a vandalism / trolling only account that could be renamed as a matter of course. I think the position on copyright and attribution of edits is too complex to be resolved other than at a WMF level, and I think whether SUL is widened this far should in any event be a global policy decision (and one to be properly announced rather than dealt with piecemeal as has happened to date). We need to know whether "collapsing the local user tables" (ie. as I understand it, ending the ability to have non SUL account) is definitely going to happen. At present, I also agree with those below who argue that performing this request strays too far into bureaucrats judging the relative "worth" of contributors. WJBscribe (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Widening the usurpation process

I'm going to repeat something that I said a few months ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 98#Making the usurpation process more flexible, in response to a proposal by User:Ndiverprime, begun after his failed attempt to usurp User:Ndiver (see also Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 25#Username:Ndiver).

I am extremely uncomfortable with widening the usurpation process; it puts bureaucrats in the awkward position of trying to decide which individuals have done more to 'deserve' a particular username, and which individuals can be declared second-class members of the community subject to forcible renaming. It also elevates a username from being a simple identifier to being something that an editor has to earn and deserve – and something to prized and fought over – which seems a tad silly and likely to lead to unnecessary and completely-avoidable conflict.

Wikipedia editors who want to use SUL across all projects have two choices when they find their preferred username in use on one of the projects. First is to ask politely if the other individual would be willing to accept a change of username; that was tried and failed here. Second is to consider a username change to a name that is available on all projects; this choice is almost always possible, but I get the impression that Ndiver has not considered it (or has dismissed it out of hand). Third is to accept the things that cannot be changed and move on.

In the particular case of Ndiver, the second choice doesn't seem overly onerous. He has made edits on only two projects as Ndiver (Global account info, 147 edits on frwiki, 74 edits on specieswiki), and just two edits not related to his usurpation campaign on as Ndiverprime on enwiki. His contributions have been thorough and valuable, but frankly they aren't that extensive, and he wouldn't have a problem (re)establishing his reputation in association with a new name. If he must have cross-project SUL, he can pick a new name, file the two rename requests, and be done with it.

In the case of Griot(-de), he has substantial contributions to only one other project (dewiki) as Griot, and he can request a rename there if he feels SUL access across all projects is sufficiently important to him. While enwiki's Griot was deservedly blocked, it's not clear to me that it was a vandalism-only or trolling-only account (indeed, it appears that that was not the case) and that it would not be appropriate for us to decide that he has somehow lost the 'right' to have his chosen name on his contributions—despite the ban he is now under. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as I feel that we should honor requests from editors in good standing versus those in bad standing. It's specifically the latter that has me convinced; if someone has been indefinitely blocked (especially for socking), I frankly don't really care about what they may or may not want. Attribution is still being preserved (so we're not violating their authorship rights), just not with the name they would prefer. It's a shame that they don't like it, but it's also a shame that they repeatedly used sockpuppets to disrupt the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While Griot is not currently (and probably – though not absolutely certainly – never again will be) in good standing, prior to his ban his contributions were those of an editor in good standing and at least some those thousands of edits were, presumably, in good faith. Retroactively changing the name under which those contributions are attributed seems like a pretty dick move on our part, and should not be taken lightly—whether or not it rises to the level of violating the terms of the GFDL (which I would like to see a professional opinion on).

This good-standing/bad-standing distinction also seems to be a significant expansion of the established usurpation policies and guidelines. This would, I think, represent the first time that the 'crats here have seriously entertained the notion that a formerly-prolific account could be usurped—if 'crats want to carry out these sorts of requests, there probably should be some sort of serious, significant policy consultation above and beyond a quick discussion on this noticeboard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the rename as being permissible under the five part balancing test of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#Handling_SUL_conflicts, point three of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_changing_usernames_is_probably_appropriate, and point two of Wikipedia:Changing_username/Guidelines#When_usurping_is_probably_inappropriate. As I read those, SUL unifications are permitted, even if the target has edits such as to preclude a normal usurp. Also, I read the language of "determine the owner or claimholder" and "English Wikipedia bureaucrats will typically process requests to "usurp" unused or inactive local accounts made by SUL owners expediently and with relaxed consideration" to give crats broader discretion in SUL cases than they would have in regular usurp requests. I don't think any of us can give a professional opinion on the GFDL, but I believe an addition of descriptors (such as to "Griot (renamed)") as compared to the wholesale alteration of descriptors (such as to "Random user 57") would preserve alteration. Further, reading point b, subpoint iii of wmf:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content, if attribution is not required for very small contributors to an article, it cannot be an absolute rule requiring perfect compliance. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Our Crats have carefully handled plenty of these type of decisions since the introduction of SUL. I don't think this is, as you put it Ten, "widening the usurpation process", just continuing to implement it in the usual calm and considered manner, as evidenced by MBisanz seeking other Crats' input, as we do from time to time. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Before the current case, what is the most prolific account (by number of edits) that has been usurped without consent? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Target username has edits". Is 5500 not enough? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That line continues, "except to resolve SUL conflicts, when this may be done as a matter of discretion". --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be done to resolve SUL conflicts if/when discretion is allowed to be involved. I see no room for discretion here. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discretion is the whole point of having human Bureaucrats. This comment doesn't really make sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? They don't have discretion to do anything they want. I see no room for discretion in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If they were "doing anything they want", they wouldn't have raised the issue and asked for input. The question is where is the fine line in a case like this, which is admittedly borderline. Of particularly concern is that any previous pointers (signatures) of that old "sock" will now point to that new account, which is an unavoidable byproduct when usurping any account of a former sock, regardless of the number of edits they had. Time helps cure this particular issue, and plenty of time has passed since the account was active. If it had been less than a year or two, this might be a reason to not proceed. If attribution is the only concern, it could be fixed with a link on the user page pointing to the previous account, although I'm not convinced that is required since the contribs will now point to the sock's new renamed account and only the signatures will point improperly. This seems to satisfy GFDL (caveat:IANAL). This wasn't a "real" person, it was a sock, so they were fraudulent to start with, thus nothing of real value is lost, and the license doesn't prohibit you from having signatures that point to the wrong user page. As the Project get older and bigger, we are going to see more of these cases, and the standards are going to have to change to accommodate the needs of the community. By current standards, this is pushing the limits a little but I would think this would be allowed within the discretion of the Bureaucrats via When usurping is probably inappropriate point #2, since permission is irrelevant and there is no way the former account holder has a legitimate claim to the name. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"This wasn't a "real" person, it was a sock, so they were fraudulent to start with, thus nothing of real value is lost,"? Even if this was a sock account from the start (which as far as I know has not been alleged, let alone established), are you really saying that editing as a sock makes all their contributions "fraudulent" and "nothing of value"? Woah. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I said. The linkage of their singnature is all that is lost when usurping. That is nothing of value. Their contribs will still link to the new account, satisfying the license. You seem to be taking the comment out of context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see, in your line "they" refers to signatures, not the account. Anyway, I do not see this anywhere near a "border". An account with thousands of good faith edits should not be usurped. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The point, I think, is that while 'crats are allowed and expected to exercise discretion, that discretion is not absolute. In balance with the reasonable discretion – and benefit of the doubt – that bureaucrats generally enjoy, the community also expects bureaucrats to recognize situations where they shouldn't necessarily go it alone on their own judgement. I suspect that this might be one of those situations. Since my question above seems to have gotten lost, I'll ask again—what is the most prolific (by number of edits) non-vandal account that has been usurped without consent? Eventually, differences in degree become differences in kind, and it's no slur on your bureaucratic judgement to acknowledge that this situation is relatively unique and not carefully contemplated when the existing policies and guidelines were drafted.

Incidentally, I'm more than a little concerned about the tone of some of the remarks here, as they are shading towards a "They are not a Wikipedian and never were, therefore they deserve no consideration whatsoever" sort of ugly. I remain very uncomfortable with the idea that, no matter how much effort an individual may have put into this project, credit for their legitimate work – under their own chosen name – can be taken away years later if they commit a serious (even egregious) policy violation. In this instance, it appears that Griot edited Wikipedia since 2005, but he was not blocked, and he used no sockpuppets (at least, none that were ever caught) prior to 2007. Can we take away his right to credit under his own, unmodified, entirely-policy-compliant username for those two years of edits (close to 3000 edits) he made in apparently good faith? I'm not saying he is or would be a good editor now; I'm definitely not saying that we would or should welcome him back with open arms if he shows up again. But a very cursory glance at his contributions history says to me that he spent a lot of time making constructive edits before (and even after) he started socking. Going back and renaming him to User:Griot (unworthy) (oops, I mean (usurped)) just ain't right.

As a final aside, I'll also note that this has the potential to break things for anyone outside Wikipedia who has reused our content. An outside publication that reuses Wikipedia material in a GFDL-compliant manner by giving authorship credit and thanks to "Wikipedia editor Griot" will, if this usurpation takes place, find themselves – through no fault of their own, and likely entirely unwittingly – giving credit to entirely the wrong person. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a counterargument, just a curious aside: don't the GFDL attribution issues you cite occur even in the course of a simple rename? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the same problem could occur—but in the case of a voluntary renaming of an account the renamed party enters into the process 'eyes open'. For a simple rename, too, they generally have the option of preserving the original username's userpage as a redirect or other explicit marker that clearly notes the change of name. (The original username also isn't generally being handed over for a third party to use, as far as I know, but is effectively 'retired' from service.) The person who requests a simple rename is taking that action as the copyright holder for the contributions in question, and is presumed competent to understand the potential pitfalls with respect to attribution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We could have Griot-de put a notice directing them to the moved userpage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TenOfAllTrades. Let me put it another way: if this request goes through, the edit count consideration should be completely dropped for all usurpation requests. No reasonable person can look at a user with over 5,000 edits, look at the current policy, and think that it is in any way appropriate to fulfill this request. The weaseling and wikilawyering by a few users above is superb—impressive, even—but please, let's not be absurd: either change the policy or deny this request. The two are currently directly and unambiguously incompatible. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I just now was reminded that the account in question isn't a SOCK, but the MASTER, which is completely different thing as there is still a chance they can come back via WP:STANDARDOFFER. If this was a SOCK account, my opinion still stands, but seeing that this is the master, I think we have to leave the account as is. Sorry about the confusion. Blame it on my old age... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I think the policy should be changed to allow indefinitely blocked and/or banned accounts to be usurped in the case of an SUL. They have lost the trust of the community. WP:SECONDCHANCE is not an entitlement; we're doing them a favor. We don't have to do anything for them, so the least they could do is allow a more deserving user to take their username. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It would have to be changed to allow that. The problem is, you are essentially taking away every admin's discretion to consider STANDARDOFFER if you usurp the MASTER. And it is hard to say for sure "this MASTER will never be unblocked". We have had a few get unblocked after a while, and many apply to. There is one at AN now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how it takes away admin discretion to unblock under the standard offer if he's renamed to Griot-en. He lost best claim to the SUL the moment the German Griot acquired the SUL and will never regain it unless he convinces a Steward to delete the SUL. While MZM argues differently, I do not read Wikipedia:CHUG#Handling_SUL_conflicts as applying a numerical threshold to renames which resolve an SUL conflict; they're granted presumptively subject to the five part balancing test. As I understand from my casual conversations with tech people at meetups, the plan remains that unattached accounts will eventually be forcibly renamed in a manner similar to meta:Single login specifications to provide that all accounts are attached to SUL and no account are unattached to an SUL. As to the Wikipedian concerns, Griot remains a Wikipedian regardless of what occurs here. We are merely adjudicating an aspect of his participation in the project; his username. Aspects of users' participation are routinely adjudicated by means of things such as WP:RFPERM, WP:RFCN, WP:BLOCK, etc. Given that Griot has not objected to the rename and Griot-ede has presented evidence of a better claim to the name, I don't see how any application of the balancing test, which is applied through the exercise of crat discretion, would argue in favor of resolving the conflict for Griot. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'crat discretion here. Policy is quite clear: "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances, such as to resolve SUL conflicts)." Discretion is only allowed for "rare exceptions" in "some circumstances" to the policy that usurped accounts should have "no edits", that is, zero. Historically, that means an account with some deleted edits and a few live edits may at times be usurped at 'crat discretion, and not "presumptively". The part of the guideline you call a five part balancing test says if the answer to one or more of the above is "yes", the request will likely be declined. One of the questions is: "Has the other-project user made more than 25 edits per year of inactivity?"; thus the guideline places bounds on where discretion is allowed. Since the target account has almost two orders of magnitude more edits than that bound, the request should be declined per policy and guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the 25 edit requirement you quote is with regard to permitting an en-wiki user to invade the SUL claim of ANOTHER user, not of another user to be renamed on en-wiki to unify an SUL. Also, the guideline states: "If the target username has good faith edits which were not immediately reverted, and the account owner has not explicitly consented to the rename, then usurping is generally not approved except to resolve SUL conflicts, when this may be done as a matter of discretion" and "English Wikipedia bureaucrats will typically process requests to "usurp" unused or inactive local accounts made by SUL owners expediently and with relaxed consideration." Do you contest that Griot in inactive? If not, then a request to usurp him is handled with "relaxed consideration." MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Relatexed considerate" does not mean unlimited. It means SUL usurps can happen when the target has some edits, which is already an exception to the policy that the target should have zero edits. Yes, I would call Griot inactive, but there is no way I would call 5000 edits anywhere near a reasonable limit on "related consideration". Gimmetoo (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that Griot will be forcibly renamed when the developers complete mw:Admin tools development/Roadmap (regardless of what happens in this request) and it seems unlikely he will be unblocked, become active enough to convince an Steward to delete the SUL to win it back from Griot-de, and displace Griot-de, I don't see why we should delay Griot-de's request now. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. Is there something on the roadmap that will prevent people from keeping an account name that they have if someone else tries to make it an SUL?—Kww(talk) 19:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The entry "Collapsing the local user tables" means that there will no longer be unattached local accounts of an SUL. Every local account will have an SUL to which it is attached and no SULs will have unattached accounts. MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First, while I see that line in the table, I don't see that description. Second, if there were a conflict between a plan on meta and a policy on enwiki, what do you think ought to guide practice on enwiki? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got Meta confused with the MediaWiki wiki. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to remember to that BFRA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 63... mabdul 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, after a conference with techs and crats, NOW I get a more full picture, that usurping in order to unify accounts is a long term foundation wide project that will eventually be forced on everyone anyway. In that light, I would support this name change, as it was unopposed by the party and is consistent with what will be the eventual outcome anyway. Thanks for listening and explaining that in the conference MBisanz, and JF. Makes sense now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Full unified login is not a long-term Wikimedia Foundation-wide project that will be eventually forced on everyone. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

And relying on MBisanz for technical advice is akin to relying on Malleus for civility advice (and I imagine both MBisanz and Malleus would agree!). Again, I'm impressed by the wikilawyering MBisanz is doing above, but it really is all bullshit. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm. Yes, it is: SUL 3.0 always has been a long-term project, and it's actively been worked into the schedule and prioritised (see "Tweak the associated maintenance scripts (in extensions/CentralAuth/maintenance) so that Shared User Login (SUL) can finally be finished and inform the communities about this.", although the schedule is out of date because things like Wikivoyage shot it to hell). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any information about SUL 3.0? Or SUL 1.0? Or SUL 2.0? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stage 3, rather - I'll get James F to chip in and provide his knowhow. My awareness is limited to "this is going to happen and it's on James F's plate". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, right behind VisualEditor, FlaggedRevs, and LiquidThreads, I believe. It would be mighty generous to call "SUL 3.0" (which I believe you just coined on this page, unless you can demonstrate otherwise) vaporware. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, a mistype; Stage 3, as I've already corrected. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Do you have a link to any information about SUL stage 3? Or stage 1? Or stage 2? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See the comment above this one ("My awareness..."). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you apparently knew enough to try to contradict me (and you seemingly jumped into this conversation only to do so), but you're so ill-informed that when pressed for details about your unsourced assertions, you're able to do nothing but deflect and mutter about how it's "on James F.'s plate." Thanks for chiming in, Oliver. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Er. Yes. I know enough to counter the statement "it's not a long-term WMF plan", but not particular details about the how, why, when and who. And given that I linked through to the roadmap, it's not unsourced, merely not particularly detailed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, documentation here (I have no idea about the title. Brion has an odd sense of humour.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing this. I recently suffered through having to usurp accounts in something like 14 different languages (in half a dozen alphabets); roll on the day when nobody has to do that again. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, I didn't rely on MBisanz for any technical information. I relied on others, such as Okeyes (WMF), who was a party to the discussion I referred to, and others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've got to say, I'm thoroughly confused at this whole thing. Last month, we had crats swearing on the blood of their mothers with regard to resysops that not only were they bound to adhere only to the literal word of policy in their actions, but that they couldn't even ask to change that policy if they wished it were otherwise. Now we have crats telling us that not only are they not bound by the literal word of policy, they're also not bound by, well, common sense, and that they can just sort of scootch policy out around the edges a bit if it suits them or if they think it helps aligns with a WMF-run initiative. Look, guys, I happen to think you're in your positions because you have judgment, and that you should be allowed to use that judgement, but you really, really need to decide whether you allow yourself interpretation of policies or not - because trying to work both sides is making you look less "standardized" (at whichever end of the continuum) and more "whimsical". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I read the language in Wikipedia:ADMIN#Restoration_of_adminship and Wikipedia:CRAT#Restoration_of_permissions to be considerably more narrow than Wikipedia:CHUG in the level of discretion they grant crats. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• We also had a discussion that policy needs to be more clear on usurps. It took a lot of gyration to get to this point, and policy needs to be updated on it so we don't have to do this again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy says don't usurp accounts with edits. The policy gives an exception to that general rule by saying that with SUL unifications, the crat has discretion. The crats have been discussing that discretion in the section above. --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose widening -- not for concern of the blocked editor, but for concern for the rest of us. Usernames and contributions are confusing enough without there being an "old" Griot and a "new" Griot. With regards to the SUL unification, WMF will have to come up with some plan for name clashes anyway, so taking action based on that isn't a compelling argument. NE Ent 03:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I'm not buying it. Your suggested alternative to renaming the English Wikipedia User:Griot with 5,500 edits is to rename the German Wikipedia Benutzer:Griot with 7,200 edits, and this because "outside publications" that credit "Wikipedia author Griot" will have the rug pulled out from under them. How, exactly, is that addressing the problem? Because it looks like what it's doing is simply punting exactly the same problem, except with a larger number of edits, over to the German Wikipedia and dodging the issue. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you are missing that the German user would still have the de:Griot account redirecting to their new name (if they want). They would be renamed voluntarily. The rename of the en:Griot, being involuntary, would leave any external credits attributed to a new user. External links probably aren't common, but I understand the concern.-gadfium 08:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You haven't thought it through. The situation is not asymmetric as you assert. Rename either account, and the problem of external credits to "Wikipedia author Griot" from content re-users for thousands of edits exists. Whether it is a voluntary or involuntary rename is immaterial. The problem that TenOfAllTrades is worried about exists, and it is always involuntary for the content re-users. Indeed, neither of you seem to have considered that anything crediting "Wikipedia author Griot" as an author is already a problem for content re-users, given that that isn't enough to identify a single author. All of this but-it-is-different-for-the-German is simply dumping the exact same problem onto the bureaucrats at the German Wikipedia, and not solving it in the least. If it's a problem for 5,500 edits, it's a problem for 7,200 edits. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Uncle G, I'm disappointed that you're picking at the smallest thread of my comment without looking at the entirety of my remarks—and I also think you're reading something into my comment that I didn't actually suggest. To be clear, I don't think that either the dewiki or the enwiki Griot should be subject to involuntary usurping.

  In considering the possible confusion associated with authorship credit given by reusers of our content, I would presume that someone looking at a block of German text would tend to look for the user on the German Wikipedia, whereas someone looking at a block of English text would be most likely to look at the English Wikipedia. And that external credit becomes completely unambiguous if the outside re-user of content provides a userpage URL – or even just specifies User:Griot versus Benutzer:Griot – but is completely broken by an involuntary rename and usurp. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "he can request a rename there if he feels SUL access across all projects is sufficiently important to him" is not the smallest thread of your comment. It's the thing that you came in on, right at the start of the discussion, as the direction to take. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Widening the process is just a bad idea. If the WMF wants to force renames as noted above, then there's little we can do when the time comes. Let's worry about the poison when it's set before us, not go about mucking in the lab before our time. Decline the usurp and any like it, and you can cite what we currently have written to back it. --Nouniquenames 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Decline the usurp request. Griot was for a long time and a large number of contributions, a valued Wikipedian. In this environment where identity is little more than a pseudonym, Griot's claim should be respected, subsequent misbehaviour notwithstanding. Do not go down the path of deciding relative worthiness of past editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think basing a decision on the possibility that at some point in the future SUL 3.0 (catchy name) will be implemented is wise or sensible. This has been on the to-do list for so long and Mz's right in pointing out how faint the possibility of its deployment seems to look; maybe we will get it eventually, but let's think about that *then* and not now. I also don't think that forcibly renaming a user with 5.5k edits is a good idea. It is not a sock, it is not pure vandalism or other meaningless content. It could come back under a standard offer or appeal to the BASC. And regardless of what he ended up doing, it's worth noting that he was clearly passionate about this project (I find socking to be prima facie evidence of passion for Wikipedia :P)and for a time a productive contributor. Disruptive behavior is ground for a block, but it shouldn't be grounds for lessening one's past useful contributions. I am pretty sure nobody would be arguing for this if the user wasn't blocked, SUL or no SUL, and I find it sad that we would rename a user just because he ended up not following our rules. To give you another example, if there was a Malleus on dewiki, older than ours, and our Malleus ended up being blocked at the time of the request, should be agree to rename him? Unthinkable I imagine. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, that's not the whole story, so I think that slippery-slope example doesn't quite fit. It's not just that they're blocked, it's that they're blocked, haven't used the account in a long time (almost five years), and haven't raised an objection to the rename. I would imagine that without all three of those criteria, nobody would have considered the request.

  That said, I don't think this is a great idea without explicit permission from the previous owner. If we can't contact them (and posting to the talk page of someone who has likely not logged in for almost five years doesn't count at all), how will they know that their account name has changed? How will they know what the new one is? If this rename goes through, then when (and if) they try to log in next, the login will fail,m because the password has changed. What do they do next? I'd put good money that they won't check the user and user talk pages without logging in first. This guy doesn't have email enabled, so not being able to email them this information is a clear deal-breaker for me. For situations like this in the future, I'd think a response from the owner that at least acknowledges what their new account name will be without objection should be required. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've already said I oppose usurping Griot's account. But does anyone have the answer to 10's question: what is the most prolific (by number of edits) non-vandal account that has been usurped without consent? Because if the answer is more than a couple dozen edits, then I think the policy needs to have a clear limit on what usurps are subject to discretion, and what usurps are simply not considered. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  655? I checked the rename log for 2010/2011 and that was the highest I found. I can't tell if it was a consented rename but it looks like it wasn't QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  I find that disturbing. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oddly, I'm not sure that was done for SUL unification. There is still no SUL for that name. Even if we assume that the requesting user is the holder of the name on enwikiquote, that account has only 414 edits - i.e. fewer than the usurped enwiki user who would have had the best claim to the global name at the time of the rename. I would have expected the request to have been declined, but maybe I'm missing something. WJBscribe (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dweller informed me kindly on this discussion. So, some remarks from the user, requesting the usurpation. At first, remarks to two points in the discussion:

• Yes, the edit on User:Saehrimnir/Julia_Stemberger of 2009 by 'Griot' is an edit of the German WP, imported here. (In the German WP there are some edits too, attributed to me, which have their origin in the English WP and are done by the (English) Griot. There seems to be a little problem...)
• Yes, the (English) Griot is/has been a constructive user. As WJBscribe wrote, he "has made good faith contributions". His account is "rather different from a vandalism / trolling only account". He only made a serious error at last. (And it should not be an argument here, that he has not raised an objection to the rename – most probably, he is unaware of this request.)

I was aware, that my request isn't a simple one, but I was unaware, that it's the first case with that number of edits of the account, wanted to usurp. So, may the usurpation be justified or not, it would be unwise, I think, to decide on it now. There seems to be the need for more discussion on the way to get SUL accounts, if conflicting accounts exist.

In this situation, it would be foolish, to hold up my usurp request. WP:USURP gives no standard way to cancel such request. Simple deletion may be inappropriate, so I ask someone, to declare it as cancelled. I hope, the effort invested here by a lot of users, is not wasted, but has given some insight in a real problem. Thanks, --Griot-de (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I will go ahead and cancel your request on the usurp page. I appreciate your patience with this process and am sorry that this could not have been a more straightforward case that we could have assisted you with. 28bytes (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• In reference to the improper attribution issue, I encountered that in 2010, when edits *I* have made on en.wp started showing up on de.wp for Benutzer:Horologium (who is *not* me). (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 79#SUL issue is the thread in question.) A bug was generated on bugzilla ([[bugzilla:24686), but it's apparently not a priority (low enhancement). Those of you who are worried about attribution issues related to a banned user might want to take a look at fixing that, which involves someone who has not edited in over five years receiving attribution for my edits. The number of misattributed edits is now up to 14, and will likely continue to rise until someone over at de.wp develops the intestinal fortitude to enable SUL for someone who holds the name in every other project except for that one; it's being held up by somebody is not active or reachable (he has disabled e-mail access on both w:de:Benutzer:Horologium and User:Horologii (his account here on en.wp, chosen because I had already started User:Horologium a few months previously). I think that might be more relevant than worrying about attribution on Wikipedia scrapes for someone who has been kicked to the curb for abusive behavior. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@QU: No, It was at least the nearly 11k from N (talk · contribs) (see [1]) mabdul 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines

I am little concerned about this page being used to justify particular practices. There is an inherent circularity to doing so. The page was created by bureaucrats to document how we exercised our discretion. The page has never had significant community input. It was originally written by Deskana and me back in 2007. The parts dealing with SUL were largely added by Xeno (then by far the most active bureaucrat dealing with usurpation requests) in February 2011. Again, I think this reflected his practice, rather than following from any wider consensus finding discussion. There's nothing wrong with us having a guideline page recording how we do things, but we need to be a little careful how we use it given its lack of wider community scrutiny. The discussion above suggests that the SUL parts may not reflect how the community would like us to exercise our discretion and I think the question of when "inactive" accounts that have made valuable contributions in the past should be usurped for SUL unification warrants a broad community discussion. My efforts to have one in the past (e.g. Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation on renames, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 10#Modification of usurpation practice for SUL requests) haven't generated much interest, but it seems that a consultation on this question now may enjoy significantly more input. I think we should have one. WJBscribe (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points made above:

1. No rename or usurp policy has ever had widespread community input but rather has been developed primarily as a codification of the rationale 'crats active in renames have followed in their own decision-making.
2. The permanent attribution of valuable contributions is a major motivating factor for some, perhaps many, Wikipedians. We undermine it at our peril.
3. Rename policy as currently implemented gives greater weight to the goals of the individual requesting a rename than it does to the goals of the broader community of Wikipedians.
4. The policy also prioritizes the wishes of current users over the integrity and transparency of the historical record. If you don't believe this, try following a major arbcom case from several years ago -- some of the arbs and many of the case participants have been renamed leading to a profusion of dead links.
5. Part of the problem is that historically it took only one 'crat to rename but a consensus to refuse. This led to the facts on the ground supporting more renames than consensus would dictate. It is 'crat culture to avoid disagreeing with other crats, which has contributed to the problem.
6. I do not believe 'crats have, as a group, sought out a broader role, though historically a handful of 'crats became 'crats specifically to work on renames out of a belief that renames should be performed routinely upon request.

I would be happy to contribute to any policy discussions that arise and will follow the relevant pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Luigi30

I was going through WP:FORMER/I to mark the last edit and log of each administrator prior to being desysopped and noticed former administrator User:Luigi30. He was desysopped on April 1, 2012 as inactive because he was on the list at WP:Inactive. His last edit was on January 13, 2011, but he came back on March 31, 2012 (1 day before the desysop date) and made a log. Obviously his desysop was in error. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was in error and would be inclined to revert it, but for the facts that he has failed to edit since then and will be inactive for a year within the next 90 days. More thoughts? MBisanz ^talk 19:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have also brought up User:Ck lostsword as an error as well in that case. He was desysopped in the initial round of inactivity desysoppings on July 3, 2011, but Ck lostsword made a log April 29, 2011. He has remained inactive and would have been desysopped in mid-2012 in any case. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move this task from the Toolserver to Labs and hopefully take care of this. MadmanBot's supposed to remove administrators who've gone active again, but many of the Toolserver nodes (on which batch jobs run) don't have the libraries upon which MadmanBot is dependent (and therefore the batch job will fail that day). Given that my request for those libraries has been pending since March of last year, I don't anticipate that situation being resolved any time soon. — madman 21:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say I wouldn't have removed the rights from Luigi30 had I been aware of this. I check contributions and logs, but must have misread the entry as "March 31, 2011". I can see MBisanz's point about a removal likely to be necessary soon awyway but (as these desysops can now be permanent in such circumstances) I think it's best that I revert the removal so the matter can be dealt with if and when Luigi again meets the inactivity criteria. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've listed him on WP:RESYSOPS and appreciate your analysis of the issue. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Desysop request Boing

I'd really like a break from being an admin and to go do some of the content gnoming that I used to do much more of before I got the bit. I've tried just ignoring admin things, but so much comes up that I get drawn into, I just can't keep away. So I would be grateful if someone would remove my admin rights for a while - I'm guessing it'll be for two or three months, and I'll ask for restoration after that if I feel I want to come back to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Hope to see you back soon, Boing. 28bytes (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing, you'll still have dozens of editors asking you for things...it's still going to be a distraction (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then he can just say, "Well, I'd like to help, but I actually can't..." ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just redirect your talk page to Bwilkin's talk page, that is what I would do. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) great minds: "Well, I'd like to help, but I actually can't, so have a word with BWilkins - he's a very helpful chap" ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

lol ... Funnier because I think I stalk both you talkpages(✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm kinda warming to the idea, maybe I'll do it too.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really want to encourage good admins to hand in their mops, but I have thought for a while that having some time off every year would be beneficial. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why this was called "Re-admin request InShaneee" so I renamed it "Desysop request Boing". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How strange - looks like it got changed from "Request for temporary desysop" here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You guys won't believe how close I've also been to handing in the bit for a while. I've been sorely tempted, but well, someone's got to hold the fort... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tou can just give your mop to me. —cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to work consuming most of my hours in a day for the next few months, I expect to pull way back on admin duties myself, instead doing a little content work and only dealing with urgent stuff. (ie:unwatchlist ANI) I agree that admin need a break regularly, as well as a change in venue, to keep us from getting cynical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have found that jumping to another wiki is a fantastic way to avoid getting burnt out at Wikipedia. Wikisource can always use more eyeballs on things. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Or come and write a book at Wikibooks instead. Or be an admin there; it is very relaxing in comparison. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 12:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to re-sysop Metamagician3000

Apologies for being so inactive in recent times, but I do still hope to be able to make a contribution both as a user and as an admin. I don't think you'll find any clouds over me. Can I have the tools back, please? Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a 24 hour waiting period before the bureaucrats can resysop. Editor's inactivity was September 2011-November 2012, so is still eligible. --Rschen7754 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A little late, but I see no issues with this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy rename please

Is it reasonable to fulfill this request? Max Semenik (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done bibliomaniac15 05:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats' statement on recent discussion regarding potential usurpation of accounts with edits

Background

This summary reflects the opinion of Dweller, only, not necessarily any Crat who signs the statement. It explains why I took the unusual step of organising a Bureaucrats' statement. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We've recently had some unusual drama at BN. Crats have been disagreeing on what policy/guidelines say. Furthermore, there's been an unpleasant tang in the air that implies that Crats have been trying to expand their powers.

To my mind, the whole affair has rather undermined our position as careful and considered assessors and implementers of consensus. The statement is designed to help address this.

The statement I put together was intended so that Crats from both sides of the discussion could agree to it. I therefore posted at the talk page of every current Bureaucrat. One small amendment to drafting was suggested and incorporated. This process was done onwiki - we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV).

Some Bureaucrats are inactive, or not up to speed with events here. That's absolutely fine. I deliberately worded the statement as one that represents the views of individual Crats, who have shown their support by signing. It is not an en-bloc statement that reflects the views of the whole group. --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bureaucrats

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed:

• Dweller (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• 28bytes (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I find myself unable to sign this due to disagreeing with some of the first few points. However, I support the overarching principle behind this; we need the documentation for renaming to be updated based on community consensus so that we're clear where we stand. I also echo the thanks that were extended to Griot-de for withdrawing his request to prevent further complications while we consider the issues. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I also find myself unable to sign this for a few reasons. My inactivity precludes me from fully knowing what has been going on as of late, and I would require myself to re-read any and all documentation before returning to the realm of bureaucracy. That being said, if there is poor word choice in the documentation that is causing confusion, creating undesired loopholes, etc, then I'm all for fixing that. I do know that I am not "unhappy", nor can I agree with item 4, as presently written, as it implies that bureaucrats are, in fact, trying to widen powers but that attempt did not cause the issues (that is to say, that the issues were caused by something else despite bureacrats trying to widen powers). It may be my inactivity causing me not to see what's going on behind the scenes, but I am unaware of any individual or group making an effort to widen bureaucrat powers in any way. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything Useight said, including the inactivity stuff, which is largely why I'm not signing this either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of adminship process

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group

• Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 17:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)