Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Clerks at WP:CHU

I have dug and dug and found no reference to any discussion related to the instillation of clerks as a process method management at WP:CHU. I am not asking if any bureaucrats agree with that decision. I am asking if (1) there was any discussion and (2) were the bureaucrats at all involved in that discussion (other than Essjay)? --Durin 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Daniel Bryant and I were on the way to ask a related question: Do the bureaucrats wish to continue using the clerks, and if so, in what role, and what actions (if any) would editors who are not clerks be asked not to do. Before I knew that Essjay would be leaving permanently I made some comments at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Usurpations that reflected my opinion at the time. I also have a draft revision of the clerks' page at User:Thatcher131/temp. It appears that Essjay's intent was to have requests verified by a group of trusted users so they could be quickly fulfilled without the bureaucrats having to take the time to verify them themselves. Although Essjay appears (and I stress appears, because I am not a mind reader) to have intended that only clerks make such remarks, it would also perfectly reasonable to allow other editors to do so as long as they were confirmed by a clerk or bureaucrat as being accurate. (And I also stress that being trusted is different from being trustworthy; most wikipedians are trustworthy, but actual trust requires at least some familiarity with a person to have confidence in their actions.) Ultimately I believe that the bureaucrats have the latitude to organize their functions as they choose; the clerks serve (or do not) at their pleasure. We can discuss it further here or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Clerks. Thatcher131 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll re-iterate my question. I'm interesting in knowing if there was any discussion before the clerks were instituted at WP:CHU and if the bureaucrats were involved in that discussion (other than Essjay). I'd like to stay focused on that question. I appreciate your input of course, Thatcher. --Durin 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, both questions need to be answered, then, although I don't quite understand your point. Essjay is gone, and going forward the bureaucrats will either ratify the clerks and accept their services or they won't. Thatcher131 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My point is the clerk position for WP:CHU was done without community approval, without other bureaucrat involvement. There's was blatantly enough opposition to it at WP:CN to show a lack of consensus that it was a good idea. It should be summarily removed. An obvious grounds for doing so is whether the bureaucrats were even involved in the discussion (much less the community). --Durin 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have found the clerk comments exceedingly useful in fulfilling usurpation requests over the past several days. I could, of course, do all of this footwork myself; it would take a bit longer but I would survive -- yet as long as there are clerks who wish to help, I will not turn them away. It ensures that the fulfilment of requests can happen on time, and keeps the entire process running smoothly. As for the username change page itself -- the research consists merely of glancing at the name to determine whether it violates the username policy, and glancing into the page history to confirm the user's identity. I am unsure as to what function a clerk could serve there. Unless I have forgotten some important step, I don't believe clerks are necessary on that page. I don't know whether there was any prior discussion, though I can't quite fathom how that is relevant now. — Dan | talk 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision to ask the clerks to help with CHU was made by Essjay and I together, during a discussion on IRC. It happened during a time when Nichalp was on wikibreak and Warofdreams and Pakaran, who had been doing renames as well, had both cut back in their bureaucrat work considerably, which meant that Essjay and I were the only Bcrats handling renames.
It was done because we were turning down a considerable number of requests solely due to silly errors in filling out the template for requests, which, when we were doing it by ourselves, meant that the requests would be denied, since we could not afford to correct errors and go searching for the users themselves (since a very common mistake was that users were misspelling their own usernames, rendering the links generated by the template useless). Sometimes, we'd have a few people who would take an interest and help out with the more obvious mistakes, such as that the username selected was taken, or that it was inappropriate, but most would soon move on and stop assisting.
Essjay and I both went to the clerks' channel on IRC and asked if they wouldn't mind taking on this extra responsibility, which would help us cut back on the rejection of requests — or at least, we'd no longer have to turn people down for silly mistakes while filling out the template, or even point out the event that they had selected a already-taken username.
Personally, I'm much obliged to the clerks for the work they've been doing there, and I hope they will continue to do. Again personally, I'm not opposed to having other users participate as well in assisting the Bcrats with the more, well, bureaucratic part of this work, particularly now that Essjay is gone. However, since we've asked that the clerks do exactly this work for us, I would have to ask them if they mind having other people do their job with them on this particular forum — CHU is a lot less complex for clerking than, say, RCU, where I'd think there'd be no questioning about keeping the clerking restricted to the Clerks. In the case of CHU, however, if the clerks are ok with it, and that is key, I would not mind having people like Durin help as well. However, if the Clerks prefer that they be the only ones doing the clerking there, then I say we must respect this, in light of the important work that is provided not only to the Bureaucrats, but to all of those who might be seeking a username change. Redux 01:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself and Daniel, but we feel we serve you, not the other way around. I think it is important to make the process more wiki-like, and I see no reason to ask other editors to avoid helping to spare the clerks' feelings. If the bureaucrats think that restricting certain kinds of comments to only clerks is of benefit, then we can specify that. Otherwise, the less restrictions, the better, with the caveat, of course, that people who persistently make unhelpful or incorrect comments will be asked to move on. Thatcher131 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
From my non-clerk, non-bureaucrat opinion, I originally began helping out at the usurpations page because I could, but I stopped when there was a message asking everyone who wasn't a clerk to stop helping. I've begun helping out again, so the page doesn't get backlogged, but it would be nice to know that I'm not stepping on any toes. I imagine others have the same questions as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I say 'go for it'. I suppose the same goes for anybody who wishes to help, with the provision that if you wish to do the job, you must do it right; the very fundament of this job is that bureaucrats should not have to double-check the work of the clerks. If we end up with too many or too few, we will deal with it. Is there any particular barrier to becoming a clerk? Titoxd and Durin, why don't you just join up and make it official? — Dan | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Picaroon 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be worked on. Problem is there are two different clerk functions, answering to different groups of functionaries, with different levels of responsibility. A checkuser clerk can't really do anything wrong except give bad advice or mess up an archive. A CHU clerk could, by giving bad advice or not understanding policy, cause a rename or usurpation to go wrong. As Redux said, when things got bogged down, Essjay recruited the clerks he already had in his pocket from RFCU. I'm not sure about splitting the two groups entirely, it would make organization and communication more difficult. However some rethinking is already underway. I already know what the checkusers want and expect; I needed to clarify the same from the bureaucrats. Thatcher131 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So what is the problem? We have more clerks than we could possibly use. If a backlog develops we'll pull more from this list. Evidently this is a desirable position; it would be unfair for people to cut in line. — Dan | talk 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I don't understand. If it is unfair to cut in line, it means I have to go sign up in some odd page and wait until someone picks me? I would sign up to be a clerk, but I don't want anything to do with RFCU, Arbitration, Mediation, or anything remotely similar. Changing usernames and dealing with abusive users are two functions fundamentally different in character. While a given user could be capable of handling both, it doesn't mean that he or she desires to do both. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict with Titoxd, whose post reinforces my first paragraph> Using the hook from what Thatcher just wrote: I agree that creating two classes of clerks, or splitting the position in two, presents certain, potential problems. On the other hand, we've had two new facts that introduced new elements surrounding the position of clerk: 1) the beginning of clerking on CHU; 2) the inception of CHU/U, which is also clerked and presented a new CHU-related work. Since those two things came into being, I noticed that 3 of the 5 last people to list themselves in the Standby list for the job manifested specifically the desire to clerk at CHU. Although it hasn't been spelled out, it would not be surprising if other people would prefer to clerk only for the CheckUser forum, or even if some of the existing clerks would prefer either to go back to clerking at RCU only or to focus on CHU only. Far from me to suggest the creation of further bureaucracy on Wikipedia, but if we accomodate people's inclinations, we might be able to get very good results. I would leave to the clerks the decision on whether or not it would desirable, or appropriate, this kind of specialization, so to speak. And I don't think that would exclude the possibility that those clerks who are willing can continue to clerk for both forums.
And now I'd like to address the question about the clerks' role on CHU, as asked:
What the Bureaucrats need from the clerks is basically to fix silly mistakes made by the requesters and point out the impediments to the fulfilling of their requests. Rejecting a request remains a Bureaucrat function. So, a couple of examples:

  • The requester misspelled his/her own username while filling out the template OR the requester forgot to use the underscore ("_") to fill spaces in their usernames, which brakes the template: please fix it if possible; if not, leave a note that the requester will need to fix it her/himself. If they don't, a Bureaucrat will officially reject the request in one or two days (ideally);
  • Username requested is either taken or is inappropriate due to policy: please leave a note asking the requester to repost asking for a different name. A Bureaucrat will reject the old request as soon as possible.

In all other cases, the clerks can always leave a note to inform the requester of any problem with their requests, or to call the Bureaucrat's attention to those problems. But the Bcrat will reject the request if it's the case — an obvious example would be if the requester gives a reason that is clearly insufficient to justify a username change, or if the account has only a handful of edits.
If anyone who is not a clerk will be doing this kind of work on CHU, please adhere to that as well. The bottom line would be: if you are not a Bureaucrat, please do not "reject" the request yourself. If the problem(s) with it is/are beyond repair, leave a note calling the Bureaucrat's attention to the problem, and/or informing the requester that s/he will have to repost with the necessary adaptations. This is necessary even in obvious cases, since otherwise the requester will always have room to complain about "why was my request rejected by someone who is not a Bureaucrat", which will only create more work for us to do, in order to address the complaints. Hopefully, this will help. Redux 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Redux. That will help a lot. In further response to Titoxd, arbitration is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, and clerks don't do mediation and don't have to be admins. As a result of how the clerks were established, the checkuser clerks are also the username clerks. This doesn't have to be the case. Or it can be the case but you could choose to specialize in the area you want, like some admins specialize in image policy and others in AfD. That's why I wanted to have this discussion.
I admit to being conflicted over the waiting list. I don't really know how many clerks is too many. And I'm not sure yet whether the title "clerk" should have any significance over general helpers. Herewith a thought experiment...
  • Suppose that clerks were described as editors who had experience and demonstrated knowledge of the policies and procedures relating to CHU and/or CU; as resources for persons requesting help; and as editors trusted by the functionaries (bureaucrats and checkusers) to keep the pages running smoothly. That would not bar other editors from helping, although such helpers might get their work double-checked by the clerks.
  • Suppose further that everyone on the current waiting list is designated a "clerk." There would be 25 or so, way too many for the current amount of work to do. The law of supply and demand would predict that some would get bored and wander off until the available clerks more or less matched the available workload.
  • Suppose on the other hand that we kept the list of active clerks at oh let's say 10, but with a statement that anyone who wanted to help could, provided their help was accurate and according to policy. Some clerks might check their watchlists to find that everything needing doing had already been done by a non-clerk. To my mind, anyone who would take offense at that isn't clerk material, at least not on Wikipedia. The clerks would still provide a necessary cross-check, and the next clerks would be drawn from the pool of active helpers rather than a static list. (At Arb clerks, a completely separate function, we've done away with the waiting list, and new candidates are selected from among the helpers who have been useful and who haven't wandered away.)
I'm still working this out, and I need to consult with the other clerks when I have something to go on. If we are not going to be coordinated by a single guru on a mountaintop, and are going to organize ourselves instead, we should try for some semblence of consensus. Thatcher131 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Responding to points above; No, I'm not going to sign up to be a clerk. I'm sorry. I see it as being hopelessly bureaucratic (no play on words intended), most especially when the very first page says "anyone can edit". Either you trust users or you don't. If I conduct myself according to whatever the standards are at WP:CHU and assist in the process there, I shouldn't have to have a special "clerk" badge to grant me permission to assist. If people are offended that a person is willing to assist in an area of interest for them, and that person does the job appropriately, then it is the offended people who are the issue, not the person conducting themselves appropriately. All this talk of how best to create a clerk corps and manage that corps is, in my opinion, wholly silly.
  • Two, the clerks don't serve the bureaucrats any more than the rest of the community serves the clerks or the bureaucrats serve the community. We are all volunteers and are equals. Period. No qualification should ever be placed on that. We all serve the project, and that is it. The only exception to this is ArbCom, and that is the only exception there ever should be.
  • This quote from Thatcher sums up much of this, and obviates the need for clerks entirely; "Otherwise, the less restrictions, the better, with the caveat, of course, that people who persistently make unhelpful or incorrect comments will be asked to move on."
  • So write clear, easy to understand instructions on how to help at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. Expect them to be followed. If they are not, attempt to educate the editor. If the editor consistently refuses to abide by the instructions, block them. This isn't brain surgery, and it works brilliantly well throughout the rest of the project. There is no reason why WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U should be different.
  • There are thousands of competent people at Wikipedia. Restricting any section to a hand selected group creates oligarchical fiefdoms that are anti-thetical to our purposes here.
  • But, I suppose I'm tilting at windmills here. We already have clerks, so therefore we're going to have clerks. If the subject had been brought up before clerks were instituted, it's clear there would not have been consensus to do so. But, since it is a fait accompli, we'll have clerks. Nobody will have the foresight and willingness to correct the wrong. And this, my friends, is how we spin ourselves into bureaucratic ecstasy. This is how instruction creep and fiefdoms will continue to be built here. Have the courage to walk to freedom. We are the free' encyclopedia, not the oligarchical mini-fiefdoms encyclopedia. Let's break out of the middle ages and walk towards the information age, where we're trying to build a free, and open project. --Durin 04:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Where did I put my thumbscrews? Thatcher131 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just proved, with those edits, that the clerk system at WP:CHU is useless. My other comments elsewhere on this topic show that it creates an oligarchical fiefdom that is obstructionist to the goals of the encyclopedia. If a clerk is the only trustworthy person who can edit WP:CHU other than bureaucrats and requesters, then somebody should undo my edits. They were obviously done by a non-clerk, and thus can not be trusted. Add simple, easy to follow instructions in their stead. Block people who refuse to abide by the instructions and willfully violate them. Have the courage to walk towards freedom. Deprecate WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U clerks. Now. --Durin 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read anything that was written above by either myself of the bureaucrats. I believe the clerks are useful and the bureaucrats seem to agree. I also understand that you are sincere in your position and I respect that although I disagree. I do not believe that clerks should get upset at (competent and accurate) help, but snarky comments such as above do not contribute to a pleasant environment. Thatcher131 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Creating obstructionist oligarchical fiefdoms that prevent users from editing things here in direct opposition to our core principles at Wikipedia:Five pillars creates a harshly unpleasant environment. All of you supporting this clerk system should ashamed. Instead, I'm being taken to task for looking upon this structure with disdain. The clerk system was put in place without any effort at community consensus, without community discussion, and my edits noted above prove you do not need a user-stratifying "clerk" badge to be trustworthy and make good edits. Indeed, get the thumbscrews. I'm off my rocker. snarky comment removed --Durin 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than 'good grief'. The distinction you're drawing here means vanishingly little to me. I wouldn't mind a casual group of users, unaffiliated with the other clerks, whom I understood to be good at their jobs; but there must be some sort of approval. As I've said above, the task becomes useless if absolutely anyone can do it, because bureaucrats need to be able to trust clerks' notes without double-checking. I would be just as happy with a group of users I know as with a group of users somebody else has approved to be called a 'clerk'.

I understand that being able to help out here means a great deal to you. Very well; go for it. I've not interacted with you much but I gather that a lot of people trust you to be generally sensible. I don't care enough about the principle here to insist that you become a clerk. I am of course not the only part of this process -- if the other clerks or bureaucrats get upset you really will have to move on -- but since you insist on making a fuss, you can have it your way. I must say, however, that I find the "step towards freedom" stuff a bit too dramatic for Wikipedia. If you have a valid point, it should be fairly easy to argue it without theatrics, which induce scoffing and undermine whatever you may really have to say. — Dan | talk 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're supposing that my being able to help out at WP:CHU means a great deal to me. This isn't true. What means an immense deal to me is to tear down barriers to contributing ALL of our volunteer efforts here, not just those of an anointed few. If I continue editing at WP:CHU, and I do everything by the book, and I am asked to move on, there is a serious, serious problem. I maintain this has already happened. As to the theatrics; it is my intention to be so. I will madly flap my arms (or fingers in this case) when I see people intentionally deviating from our core principles. What clerks boil down to is "Oh you're all trusted, except we trust *these* people more!". We trust anonymous IPs with our most precious resource here, yet so far to a person every bureaucrat is unwilling to trust something as minor as WP:CHU to all but an anointed few. You want to scoff? Go for it. The more you scoff at my position, the more absurd your position becomes. I am backed up by core philosophies of Wikipedia, and it's provable. You are backed up by a willingness to create barriers to contributing here. It's creeping, and getting worse. Clerks at ArbCom. Clerks at WP:RFCU. Clerks at WP:CHU/U. Clerks at WP:CHU. "Verified users" at WP:OP (just an obfuscated name for "trusted user", which is all "clerk" means too). I don't care if you and every bureaucrat thinks I'm a raving lunatic. What's the quote? Never is a person so free who has nothing to lose. Something like that. None of you has been able to show that a person who is doing work at WP:CHU must have a clerk badge in order to do it, in order to be trusted. None of you. Failing that, there is no reason why the clerk role should exist. You either trust people, or you don't. Period. --Durin 17:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • We're going back and forth here. Clearly some users are more trusted than others; this allows us to have administrators. If nobody is allowed to trust anybody more than anybody else among non-administrators, then not only can we not have the title 'clerk' -- we can have nobody performing the function of a clerk. As I have said twice above (I believe there has been no direct reply), in order for this job to be the least bit useful, bureaucrats must be able to trust clerk notes without double-checking. Allowing anybody to do it renders it useless. If you wish to abolish clerks and their functions altogether, you are welcome to make the case to each of the present clerks on their own talk pages that their actions, while helpful, are paving the road to serfdom. If you succeed you will have my congratulations, though the users who form the backlog of username change requests may not be so pleased. — Dan | talk 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The authority to deprecate the clerk system does not rest with the clerks. This is precisely the kind of fiefdom thinking I've been protesting against. The community decides these things, and no effort to do so was undertaken. Instead, it was done off wiki, on a clerk channel. It is hardly surprising that suggesting to the clerks that WP:CHU needed to be clerked would result in them clerking it. It is laughably absurd for me to repeat the operation of approaching the clerks about whether they think clerking at WP:CHU is a good idea; they will all, to a person, say that clerks are needed.
      • Allowing anybody to do it enhances it. I just proved the clerks aren't doing a sufficient job, by properly removing and archiving a request that had been sitting around for two days because it was not handled properly. All a bureaucrat has to do is to come across a dozen or so edits by User:JoeUser123 to see that what he is doing there is right and inline with the expectations of WP:CHU. From then on, he's trusted. No bureaucracy needed. If the bureaucrat comes across someone they are not familiar with, they check his edits a few times. I just don't see what the big deal is here that you MUST have an anointed few who you say you can trust. If it is so time consuming to check on an editor at WP:CHU that you are not familiar with that it causes WP:CHU to become backed up, then the answer is more bureaucrats; not an exclusionary club of "trusted" users which implies anyone else is untrusted.
      • We address backlogs in processes by finding people to help, not by creating barriers to helping! --Durin 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If the authority rests with the community, address your plea to the community. I think there's a community noticeboard too. If they wish to abolish the designation, I will help to make it so, on the username change pages at least. You have "proved" that the current clerks are slacking off by archiving a single old request? I hate very much to spoil your fantasy, but life would have gone on without your correction. I or somebody would have stumbled across it sooner or later, and it would all have been handled in due course. There's no immediacy about these things. Yes, we address backlogs by finding people to help -- well, there are a good many people helping already, and accordingly there are no backlogs. If one develops we will handle it. The process is working; why fix it? — Dan | talk 20:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I live in a fantasy world. I live in a world where anyone can edit Wikipedia. Apparently, this isn't reality. Apparently, I need a special nice shiny "clerk" badge in order to edit in the temple of WP:CHU. If I don't need this special badge, then why does the clerk badge exist? That paradox hasn't been explained.
      • One of the key problems here is that we are a community effort. We build this thing called Wikipedia through group efforts. No one person, or group of people, has all the answers. When you create exclusionary groups, you stifle creativity. You prevent new solutions from possibly coming to the fore that could solve problems. Instead, you create intractable groups that when asked to clerk predictably say "clerking is good!". This is absurd on the face of it.
      • I already raised the issue at WP:CN, and it's blatantly obvious from the discussion there that there is no consensus for the idea of clerks at WP:CHU. Since you bureaucrats refuse to have the courage to acknowledge there was no discussion for this, no consensus for this, you leave the community little choice but to WP:BOLDly remove the references to "clerk" at WP:CHU, and MfD the Wikipedia:Changing username/Clerks. It was done without the consent or even discussion with the community at the hands of two bureaucrats, one of whom is no longer active. --Durin 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the community noticeboard; it lasted about 24 hours, and is archived here. Thatcher131 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Username changes are boring and that anybody at all wants to help the bureaucrats is a blessing. If someone clamors to be allowed to help I'll glance through their contribs and raise no objections unless they look entirely crazy. All I can tell from the CN discussion is there is no consensus for much of anything. I still can't figure out what you're doing here -- you mention an MFD; go for it! — Dan | talk 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd rather avoid the MfD. You and I both know it's going to end up as no consensus and be a ridiculous demonstration. I'd rather see the bureaucrats remove the mention of clerks on the page, and delete the /clerks page as unneeded. Also create an instruction page that is a derivative of some of what is on the clerks page for people to follow to help the bureaucrats. That's the right thing to do. The bureaucrats put this ugly beast into place. They can remove it. --Durin 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have refactored the clerks page a great deal, and renamed it. As I have said, it is nothing to me whether these users are called 'clerks' or not. I intend to deal with problems in the new system as they arise, as I do not wish to over-bureaucratize the process by accounting for every contingency in advance. I'm not quite sure what you have in mind, but I hope this is some improvement. This does, after all, seem like a lot of to-do for such a small matter. — Dan | talk 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is a massive improvement. It removes obstacles to contributing and gets rid of the stratification of users (which often enough results in badge wearing). Thank you Dan for having the willingness to do this. Next up, this sort of thinking and progress making needs to be applied to WP:CHU/U, and further on to WP:RFCU and WP:OP (maybe those have been done already; I haven't checked). --Durin 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Other clerk areas

That's odd, Durin said earlier he was withdrawing any objections to clerkhood. I guess that was just something he said to get people off his back. Milto LOL pia 06:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If Durin intends to start a storm at RFCU then I will respond in kind by recommending the suspension of the page. RFCU was created by checkusers for the benefit of the community and not the other way round. After some time checkusers found great benefit in establishing the clerks to deal with the bureaucratic backlog that developed and which was actively intefering with the checkusers' activities. Thanks to them, RFCU now runs smoothly, checkusers need worry only about the actual checks, and we have a comprehensive and consistent archive for past reference. These are all good things. The only backlog at checkuser now relates to the actual check execution, which only checkusers themselves can do.

Now, I'm very confused here. Durin is complaining loudly about being unable to help in a certain area (his idea), and has turned this into an indictment of a sector of Wikipedia, angering a number of good faith contributors in the process. I thought we were here to help Wikipedia, and not the other way round. There is no backlog at RFCU that he could help with. The volunteers working there now have ensured that there is none. Why for heaven's sake do you feel the need to create disruption? How will Wikipedia benefit from this? Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is basically what I've been trying to say on the matter, except that Mackensen's language was well-thought out and polite, unlike my own. So, for what it's worth, I think Mackensen hit the nail on the head. Milto LOL pia 13:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is all really quite simple. Read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Carefully. When you're done reading it, read it again. Keep reading it until it sinks in that we are a free content project, with no hard and fast rules that are immutable, and anyone...anyone...can edit.
  • The rationale that nobody else should be touching RFCU because it's working nicely is quite absurd. Wikipedia works as a community effort. No one person and no one group of people has all the answers. By blocking people out of contributing in any section of the community, you stifle forward progress. Do you really honestly believe that the only way, the best way, and there is no other way possible for RFCU to be handled is the way in which you guys have agreed it should be done? That's what you are expressing right now. This is absolutely astonishing arrogance.
  • If protesting how RFCU has managed to upset your cart so much that you'll pick up your toys and go home, then by all means please pick up your toys and go home. If you're looking for a sandbox, please go to Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you feel that my (verbal only mind you) protest against something in Wikipedia constitutes disruption, then you had better block me immediately! I am an obvious threat to RFCU. Get your targeting systems engaged and hit that block button! Can't have somebody running around complaining about the RFCU group now can we?
  • And yes, I did withdraw my complaints about the clerk systems before because it was apparent that Essjay was going to pick up his toys and go home. After reading User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox (see the deleted file), I realized just how negative and anti-wiki this philosophy is. I reversed my stance, and now yes I will work to unseat any person or group of people who think they are so important in their function at RFCU that it matters if they pick up their toys and go home. You obviously think way too highly of yourselves. Wikipedia has gone through a dizzying array of departures from minor to big, and guess what? This amazing thing happened. We moved on. So, even if every single person at WP:RFCU were to stop contributing there, it would still continue on in some form. --Durin 13:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If every single checkuser stopped contributing at RFCU then it would become a ghost town. You didn't specify what your pronouns referred to, which is most unhelpful. You haven't explained, at all, how you're planning to make things better. You also haven't demonstrated how you've been prevented from helping there. As far as I know, you've never tried to do anything there. You have, however, complained loudly and without justification that you can't edit there. This is an absurd position that you've taken and I kindly urge you to back down. RFCU works and has worked well for some time. You're welcome to edit there but if your changes aren't good then you'll get reverted because, well, that's the wiki way. Nothing in the five pillars says we have to break things on principle. In short, you have a philosophical objection that isn't grounded in any practical problems encountered but in your view that's sufficient to raise a stink. You also haven't explained how all this will help me, the checkuser, do my job. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we'd also be grateful if you dropped the martyr complex and engaged the issues. Mackensen (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, you'd better block me quick. I've got a martyr complex! <laugh>
  • I'll go back to what I have said repeatedly; if a non-clerk can perform functions at WP:RFCU that are in adherence with instructions and past practice, then there is no reason for the title of "clerk" and no reason for the absurd standby list. You either let people help, or you create an exclusionary little club that gets mad when others find fault with their tree house. How to make things better? Observe what Rdsmith4 did to clerks at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. That was a beautiful piece of editing he did. It can just as easily work at WP:RFCU and in so doing you remove barriers to people helping in ways they want to volunteer their efforts. Nothing in the five pillars says that we should create exclusionary groups. Show me where it does. I shouldn't have to have a clerk badge. If I can edit WP:RFCU without a clerk badge, then there's no reason for anyone to have clerk badges. I already explained to you how it will help you do your job. By stifling community creativity by creating an exclusionary club, you prevent the formation of new ideas. Nobody, not you, nt Jimbo, not anyone has all the answers. --Durin 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the bureaucratic structure exists. Lots of people tend to fall into that sand trap. If it's not needed, then get rid of the standby list (at a minimum). I'd recommend taking the action that Rdsmith4 did yesterday to the CHU clerks. It's a beautiful middle position that still preserves integrity of function without creating barriers to volunteering. --Durin 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just came across this diff on the standby list, added three days ago. If people have to come up with elaborate rationale why a standby list has to exist on what is supposed to be an open project, some serious rethinking is most likely indicated. --Durin 14:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I comment so late in the day, and have not read the above posts. I have a few points to answer:

  • Are clerks useful: Yes I agree. They make the process smoother for renames.
  • Is the work voluntary? Yes, like wikipedia they should be. The entire selection process should be transparent. If someone wants to volunteer, then by all means sign up on a page, read the basic procedures and help out in the voluntary wiki spirit. If you get bored, remove your name.
  • Are clerks 100% necessary? No. In the good 'ole days the entire process was hand done by bureaucrats. (Just like you don't need a car to walk 200 m down the road).
  • I saw Durin's post on WT:CHU, but I had no time to investigate what went bad between the two.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing went bad between Essjay and myself that has much of a connection to my protest against clerk roles. Essjay made me aware of them. I find fault with some of what he did. But any disagreements we had bear no relation to my current protest against clerks. I am not on a warpath against Essjay. Hell, he's gone. What would be the point? --Durin 14:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I read that right? If Durin continues to question the clerking process Mackensen wants RFCU shut down? I'm sorry but that seems over the top....good faith discussions (even if heated at times) are a perfectly acceptable way of doing business here. If "every single checkuser stopped contributing at RFCU", that says way more about those editors then it does anyone questioning the process. The defensiveness I'm seeing here is really counter productive. When a valued long time editor questions a process they shouldn't be shouted down. And the stakeholders in that process certainly shouldn't be holding the process hostage to closure if the debate continues (which has happened twice now). Yuck. RxS 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No, that's not what I said. What I said was that if he was about to go and break the system without good reason I'd set up shop elsewhere. Durin is a valued long time editor, but I would hope that I could be considered one as well, and I've been associated with the processes under consideration far, far longer than he has. If I'm on the defensive it's because Durin is on the offensive and as angered a number of people in the process, prompting at least on departure from the project and nearly causing another. I have also had difficulty assuming good faith given the Durin's abrasive behaviour throughout, and his assumption of bad faith (to my mind) towards the checkuser clerks. Mackensen (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If my actions have caused someone who advocates placing barriers to editing to leave the project, then I am sorry only that they think placing barriers was a good thing to do. I am not going to apologize for attempting to keep this project an open project. Further, I am not going to apologize if my raising a protest against this inherently anti-wiki system has angered people, nor will I step back from protesting it because the very people who are part of the system are the ones getting angry about it. It is no surprise they would get angry about it. In fact, we should expect them to get angry. It is a natural consequence to having a social construct undermined. I have no complaint with any particular checkuser clerk. I have a complaint with the checkuser clerk system. That does not imply bad faith assumptions on my part towards any clerk.
  • And I am not a valued editor. It is precisely that I am not a valued editor that I can freely speak my mind and turn these carts over and watch the apples go skittering about. I have no social currency here anymore, and most emphatically do not want any. It is central to my points that this be the case. Nobody should have to have any social currency in order to be a productive editor here. Stratification of users is flat wrong. All of us, to the last person, serve the project. --Durin 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, here's what you said: "If Durin intends to start a storm at RFCU then I will respond in kind by recommending the suspension of the page" Now we can disagree about what a storm means but that statement is certainly not meant to advance a discussion about clerks. It seems to me to be a threat. And as far as assuming bad faith about clerks, it's not an assumption of bad faith to question a process, the need for it and/or who it's being carried out. Anyway, threatening to suspend a process because people are questioning it is just not on. RxS 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not talking about "questioning." This has been an on-going controversy for about two weeks now--one which I thought had quietly died. It had seemed to me that the consensus on the Community Noticeboard was to let the matter rest right where it was. I'm still waiting to find out how we benefit from changing the existing system, which has functioned properly for some months. I'm also waiting for Durin to start helping out by making edits at RFCU since he's always been welcome to do so. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If I am welcome to do so, then you don't need clerks. Pure and simple. --Durin 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Not quite true. Clerks have consented to hang around. If I see something need doing there's a pool of individuals who I know to be capable of doing the job. Some of them are also experts on particular sockpuppeteers, which is invaluable since checkusers burn out faster than clerks. Are you willing to make that kind of commitment? Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • <undent> Then put a system in place like Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance! This system addresses that need, without putting in barriers to editing, without giving people shiny badges to wear. Whether I am willing to make the commitment or not is immaterial. There's a willing and capable public that is just *waiting* to help with these "mundane tasks", and they are being prevented from doing so. Why stop them? Why? The only arguement I've heard against that is that you don't want them bumping into each other. That should be a good thing that tasks are handled quickly. Not a bad thing. --Durin 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another idea

Arbitration proposed decision pages aren't normally protected. Let's let anyone edit them to add supports and opposes. Additionally, let's let every hoo-ha with the brains to make an account remove/modify cases and requests on a whim.

If this isn't a good proposal, let me ask this: how would dissolving the "position" of clerk change the ways in which you can help Wikipedia? Do you think it would be helpful to the arbs and CUs? So far those in favor of scrapping clerks have cited mostly philosophical reasons; are there any pragmatic ones? Milto LOL pia 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy for one thing. But practically speaking, making a barrier for participation (waiting lists, closed IRC channels) will reduce interest and ability to take part. Limiting participation results in fewer people being familiar with the process involved. Then, as normal attrition occurs fewer people are active and backlogs are created as new people are brought up to speed (if any are interested at that point). RxS 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Like all editors, clerks may participate in arbitration cases by making proposals or commenting on the Evidence talk, Workshop and Workshop talk pages." Anyone can edit anything at RFAR, with the exception of the proposed and final decision pages. Since the Arbitrators are the only ones who can vote, it makes sense they are the only ones permitted to do so. Clerks at ArbCom have no special authority. At RFCU, they do; others can not edit what they can. If others can edit what they can, there's no point to having clerks. And there's the rub. Follow the model Rdsmith4 just put into place at WP:CHU. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance. It still provides the needed coordination without the shiny clerk badges.
  • You know, there once was a time when quite a number of users thought it somewhat offensive for an administrator to note they were an administrator. It was supposed to be a largely janitorial role. It's been elevated now, and nobody thinks anything of someone noting they are an administrator, much less on their userpage. Now, people walk around with all sorts of shiny badges stuck to their userpages, either as checkuser userboxes or as cute little icons stuck to the upper right of their userpages. Sigh. --Durin 17:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So, how would scrapping the clerks help the arbs and/or Checkusers? Milto LOL pia 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • See my practically speaking comment above. Basically, checkusers exist to benefit Wikipedia and Wikipedia doesn't benefit from having a process that closed to all but a very few editors. RxS 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here (bear with me). Checkuser of course exists only to benefit Wikipedia--there would be no point otherwise. No one would contest that. Checkusers, of course, are drawn from a very narrow pool and the very nature of the task precludes expansion. No one would, I should think, would contest that either. Any user can submit a request for checkuser, which will be processed at the checkuser's discretion. So far, so good. Where do clerks/assisters/some name that doesn't offend people fit into all of this? They have been delegated by checkusers the responsibility of doing the mundane tasks that the checkusers didn't want to do anymore. If you look at the history of the RFCU page checkusers once handled everything, just as arbitrators once did everything at RFAR. With scope creep and increased demand comes delegation. This is why I seem to be cranky for no good reason--to my mind this entire question has been approached from the wrong direction. Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • But isn't Wikipedia full of mundane tasks that no one (checkuser or not) wants to do? Checkusers are, as you say limited by the nature of the work they do. No question. But, a small group formally recognized to do their mundane (non-sensitive and in public view) tasks? I don't get it....if there is so much mundane work to be done, why limit participation? If there's a learning curve to it, mentor people or something. But it seems anti-Wiki and counter productive to limit participation in an area that needs a lot of "grunt" work. RxS 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • That line comes down to the fact that clerks are trusted, and anybody who isn't a clerk isn't trusted. So much for WP:AGF. It's a mundane task. Yet, you want to *prevent* people from helping with a mundane task? "No sir, thank you, I'll keep shoveling this pile of crap by myself thank you!" <rolls eyes> --Durin 17:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Guide#Dealing_with_non-clerks. "Dealing" with non clerks? That section reads pretty blatantly, if trying to handle such people that need to be "dealt" with nicely, that non-clerk contributions are unwelcome. Good grief. Was the Trojan Horse this high? --Durin 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I have no idea at this point what Durin is even talking about, and can only assume that he doesn't know either. That clerks are trusted does not imply that everyone else isn't trusted unless your process assumes bad faith by default. I hope Durin isn't claiming that. Checkuser clerks are trusted by checkusers to manage RFCU and, more broadly, to keep checkusers advised of checkuser-related goings-on. This they have done for months without criticism or complaint and I value their service. That they have the community's trust as well is demonstrated by the fact that several have gone on to become sysops. Most of what clerks do is indeed mundane work. As Durin says, anybody could do it (not that many want to). However, as I've stated elsewhere, it's mundane work that needs to be done in a consistent fashion. True, this can be done by having a thorough description of the task somewhere, but it's easier to have a small group of people who know the task and who talk to each other regularly. Again, there's nothing to stop any user from doing this work, but there does exist a small group who do the work regularly. We call these people clerks. Durin doesn't think this is a good idea because such a distinction is unnecessary and un-wiki. I will address these points below.

I have known some of the checkuser clerks for six months or more. During this time I've established a close relationship with them and they, in turn, have developed a good feel for how checkuser works--what's possible and what's not. As such, they're good at asking for additional information when needed. They're also good at refactoring a request and bringing forward the information that a checkuser will actually need. Furthermore, they're familiar with many of our most common sockpuppeteers and can share such information on request. This is a good thing, as I've said above, as checkusers burn out faster than clerks. This is the benefit of people who have committed to a particular task. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You can't be serious? "can only assume that [Durin doesn't know what's he's talking about either]". Ok, I'll add on to the other pejoratives people have been using of me late. Thank you! Another badge of honor!
  • The guide itself indicates, as I noted above, that non-clerks are basically told to get lost, and should go look at the backlogs. Non-clerks are to be "dealt" with, and you think this is a GOOD thing? Good grief. Shockingly, repulsively arrogant, most especially on an OPEN PROJECT. The clerk process doesn't assume bad faith by default, but it does assume incompetence by default. It demeans anyone who is not a clerk, and raises clerk onto a pedestal to be revered, which is shown in all the people that are clerks that wear it as a badge (look at the uses of icons and userboxes on their pages). The idea that there is nothing to stop someone from doing this stuff is flat wrong. The barrier is inherent to the system. If there is no barrier, then why is there a standby list? Why? If anyone can do it, then you don't need a standby list. If anyone can do it, you don't need the "clerk" title. The entire rationale paragraph that you made above reads thus; *these* people are good at it, and those *other* people are not. Good grief this reads like a Dr. Seuss book...you know, the one where some creatures had stars on their stomachs and others did not?
  • Oh and Mackensen? Please do go out of your way again to demean my protests as the words of a person who doesn't know what they are talking about anymore. --Durin 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought you didn't like badges? Best throw that one away. Did you see my comment above, where I pointed out that the language which so angers you was added by Radiant a week ago? I can't be defending language I don't know about it. I already said that I don't know why there's a standby list, but you keep waving it at me as though it's my fault. People add themselves to lists all the time. Stop ignoring what I've told you and I'll stop claiming that you don't know what you're talking about. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll wear self-deprecating badges all I like, thank you, as they don't stratify me above anyone else like clerk badges do. Yes, it was added by Radiant! When Hagermanbot signed it, Thatcher, a clerk, reverted the bot. So he obviously read it and approved of it enough to allow it to stay. And I'll keep raising the standby list as part of the problem for as long as it exists. I don't particularly care if *you* didn't put the standby list in place. It IS in place, and it is part of the problem. Just like the thinking espoused by what Radiant is in the system and at least approved by one of the clerks; you didn't suggest it or add it but it is part of the problem. That's how clerks view themselves. If they didn't view themselves that way, there wouldn't be any need to have a clerk role. All you'd need is an instructions list, as was recently done at WP:CHU. --Durin 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm done with this conversation. The only "problem" that's actually become apparent is that there isn't a backlog at RFCU so people can't edit there to remove the non-existant backlog. That speaks to the system actually working. This is un-wiki only in the sense that all other parts of the wiki have backlog without enough people helping with it. Durin, you are and have always been free to edit RFCU, you are free to avail yourself of the opportunity any time you'll like. I'll continue to use the term "clerk" to refer to people experienced with the process. Good day to you. Mackensen (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Then maybe you aren't part of the problem. Yet, you are a checkuser and you are in a position to fix the problem. The clerk system is inherently providing barriers to people helping at RFCU. There isn't any reason that I've seen put forth that a system virtually identical to that at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance can not be used in place of the clerk system. None. It works the same, and eliminates the barriers and badge wearing. If you think the standby list is wrong, then get rid of it. You're a checkuser. It was put in place to aid you. If it's not aiding you, then what's the point of it being there? --Durin 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the WP:RFCU page and for some time was the only person working it. It was a major load of tedium (something which I don't really care a lot for). When someone (I don't remember who) volunteered to help out with the administrative stuff so I could spend more of my limited time actually doing checkusers, I gratefully accepted the offer. That was the start of the "checkuser clerk" concept: someone who volunteered to help someone else out. I moved on to other issues and left RFCU in the hands of others for a time, then came back to find a nicely organized system that really allowed me, as a checkuser, to efficiently provide that particular service while other competent, committed, responsible, and well-organized volunteers would ensure that my time was not being wasted. I found the entire system highly beneficial and commend those who developed it. These people are trusted because they've earned that trust through dedicated and diligent service. And they got those positions by volunteering to do the work and then actually doing it and doing it well. I don't know what makes these people want to do this sort of thing. But they do, and they do a good job.
The first checkuser clerk had to figure it all out from scratch. The rest, however, could learn from those who came before. As far as I'm concerned, anybody can clerk on RFCU (whether or not "recognized" as one), as long as they do it right. There are very few places where rank has privileges; this is not one of those places. That said, if you do it wrong, you are likely to create extra work both for those who do it on a regular basis (the "recognized clerks") and, more importantly, for the checkusers themselves. Therefore, common courtesy as well as common sense requires that anyone who seeks to help out at RFCU should probably talk to the people who do it on a regular basis before trying to help out, just to make sure they really do understand how the system works.
As far as I'm concerned, Durin can play clerk on RFCU whether or not he has a badge. Hell, Karmafist can play clerk on RFCU if he wants -- as long as he does it right. There's no badges, just a responsibility to not make a mess. To that end, I do object to there being any formal system which gives special rights to regular clerks here, or any suggestion that regular clerks have special rights here or elsewhere that others might not. That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to question edits on RFCU by those who are not regular clerks, but they should not be reverted solely for the reason that they were made by "unauthorized persons". (Hopefully that's not totally unclear.) Kelly Martin (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, by and large, with Mackenson's and Kelly's comments above. Anyone who spends a lot of time at RFCU will tell you that substantially all the requests are made by people who are unfamiliar with the RFCU page and the checkuser process, and who more often than not have misconceptions about how socks dealt with by Wikipedia. Part of the reason for this is that the RFCU process is, by design, used rarely and does not involve community input, so most typical editors will never go through the process often enough to become familiar and comfortable with it. Hence, the value of individuals who attend to the organization of the page, the formatting of requests, and the archiving requirements. The clerks provide a valuable service.
While I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of "official clerks" for the page, I believe that it is important that we refrain from expecting people who make requests for checkuser to format the pages properly themselves. I also believe that it important to keep it clear that the page exists as a convenience to the people actually performing the checks, who are elected and who are operating within specific narrow guidelines issued by the WMF. This is in contrast to community process pages like XfD, RFA, and so on. I'll look in on the clerk pages and make some suggestions in that light. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not advocating deprecating the idea that people can help at RFCU. I am saying that the notion of "clerk" and how it has been implemented is intentionally exclusionary and inherently anti-wiki. The work that is being done can still be done with a structure like that at Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance, without the obstacles and without the badge wearing. --Durin 18:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's no more antiwiki than the fact admins that can edit some pages that others can't. And no more insulting. Now I think it should be fairly obvious the clerks are very useful and that some users are simply not going to be trusted enough to be helpful. So whether there's a formal position that is allowed to help or just some people that are not, I don't really care I guess as long as the work gets done and there isn't disruption. What I've said before is that CHU is very far removed from helping to achieve the project's goals and we should reduce it to where the only reasons to grant requests are things such as privacy or other limited cases. If other's feel differently, meh, I'm not going to force the issue. I do agree with others here that you've not handled this issue well Durin. The same thing could have been accomplished with far far less heat and more light. Just because blocking you isn't the most fruitful solution, doesn't mean your methods couldn't improve a lot. - Taxman Talk 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see where the concept of trusted users come in. The only thing at issue here is the normal, mundane tasks that involve no sensitive information that's done in public view.
As Kelly said, it's all of our responsibility not to make a mess on Wikipedia. There's a learning curve everywhere on Wikipedia, (and to perhaps beat a dead horse) if there's a steeper then usual learning curve here I don't see how it helps us by limiting the number of people getting practice doing it. That's the cost of doing business the way we've choosen here.
And if extra work is created by mistakes new users make, that's also the cost of doing business the way we've choosen. In the end, more people active at RFCU will make the process more familar to more editors. That has to be a good thing. And, just to make another point, a closed IRC channel doesn't help. If only those formally recognised as clerks can join how does that help normalize the process for a greater number of editors? RxS 20:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this latest dust-up has caught me at a busy time both at work and at home. I am more than happy to make some adjustments to make checkuser clerks more similar to CHU/Assistance. Although I'm not sure why an arbitration case can take 2 months but if this isn't fixed RIGHT NOW it's suddenly a crisis. I would like to make a couple of points now (before I go back to paying work).

  • I think it should be noted that there is very little functional difference between CHU/Clerk and CHU/Assistance. Rdsmith4 wants helpers to sign up, so the bureaucrats can recognize their names and become familiar with them, and people who give bad advice will be asked to leave. Other than the waiting list and the title, it's about the same. The page is written in a more open fashion, which can certainly be done at checkuser.
  • Certain things about the way checkuser clerks evolved were very much Essjay's doing, and I was not always thrilled with the results. Both Daniel Bryant and I recognize the need for some changes; I'm sorry that I have responsibilities in the real world.
  • I am extremely disappointed in the way Durin has handled this issue, and it pains me to say so as he nominated me for adminship. After deciding that Essjay's "sandbox" approach was wrong, Durin took to CN with a flank speed assault on all the clerks' positions. Besides confusing the issue greatly (there are three types of clerks with different levels of responsibility, and only the CHU clerks were implemented without community involvement) it was not very wiki like at all. Durin could have started out at Talk:RFCU/Clerks and I would have been more than happy to engage him on the issues. Ultimately the reform, if you will, of CHU/Clerks into CHU/Assistance was a good thing, and similar lessons can be applied to RFCU/Clerks, but this experience has left me with a very sour taste in my mouth, and I would really rather that it not seem like Durin was enjoying stirring up trouble. Thatcher131 18:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, please do me the honor of reading the following in full. I recognize it is long, and I'm sorry for that. I am not asking you to agree with me. I just want you to understand my thinking and mindset on this and related issues.
  • First, I'm sorry the issue has been dragged out here. There are certainly more appropriate forums for it. The discussion here segued this morning after the WP:CHU clerks were abolished, and the discussion has been ongoing here since then with regards to RFCU I think in part because there were a number of relevant points already discussed here. That said, this is the inappropriate forum for this discussion now. I apologize that it has continued here and I was part and parcel of that problem.
  • Second, I am fully aware that my assault on the clerk system would mean cashing in all social currency I had left on the project. It was a conscious decision to do so. I recognized there would be people who would be upset at me taking this action at least in part because a previously respected user was, apparently, losing it and publicly licking his wounds and destroying himself (to paraphrase some). To be clear, I have no wounds to lick. As I've expressed elsewhere, I knew from the outset that my RfB was going to fail, I made a conscious decision to give up my adminship following my RfB long before I ever filed the RfB. This was a conscious, well thought out process.
  • So why did I do it? Sometimes, systems become so entrenched that there isn't a way of negotiating your way through it. At some point, you say "This is intolerable". My original intent in my path of action had solely to do with RfA. I did not expect the clerk office situation to become part of this, but my plan of action with regards to RfA allowed the clerk issue to dovetail into it rather nicely. Both systems are heavily entrenched. Both need major overhauls. Both have failed at attempts to show the supreme problematic nature of both. When this is recognized, you can choose to do one of two things; accept its evils or work to replace them with something that does work inline with the highest ideals of the project.
  • In approaching the clerk problem, I was very much aware that my attacking that system would result in people feeling attacked. But, it was never my intention to attack any single person. The reality was, the people comprised the system; there was no way to separate the two. It could not be helped that some people would feel attacked by the system and respond rather angrily, which has happened several times now. Such an inevitable reaction does not mean the path should not be undertaken. A Dilbert calendar on my wall says for February "Any job worth doing is too hard". Comedic, of course. But, too many people at Wikipedia have fallen into precisely this trap because they are unwilling to expend their social currency to get change done at Wikipedia. Why? Because too much of Wikipedia has become about badge wearing, and trying ever so hard not to make the all precious mistake of upsetting someone.
  • People routinely maintain shitlists around here. Here's one example: User:Rebecca/Users to watch. That shitlist has existed for nigh on three years now. I was on that shitlist for quite some time, just over a year. It's hardly surprising that Rebecca voted oppose at my RfB. It doesn't matter if it exists or not; if we push such lists off Wikipedia, people will still maintain them somewhere.
  • What this points to is a fundamental factor that undermines what it is we are trying to do here. If people don't *like* you, you are prevented from doing things you are clearly qualified to do. You have to build up social currency and expend it in tiny little sums in order not to piss off anyone such that you can't do what you want to do here. I ran across this yesterday on IRC where a steward said he was unwilling to spend his "rogue points" on en.wikipedia right now, and wanted to avoid controversy. That's exactly the sort of problem I am talking about. I spent a fair bit of time discussing the problematic nature of clerks and it was for naught; he was unwilling to implement the suggestion he made to solve it, and I do not have the social clout to implement it myself. That's a systemic failing.
  • Increasingly, people are of the mindset that there are roles within Wikipedia that are worth coveting. As a result of that, people raise barriers to getting those things. I keep running into these around Wikipedia, seemingly with every day that goes by. I'd thought originally that RfA was really the only big problem. But, there are others, and plenty of them. Since these roles are increasingly hard to get, people are afraid to expend their social currency lest they be prevented from attaining these lofty positions. This is pure sociology. The net result though is incredibly harmful to the project.
  • Take for example my work on fair use images. Lots of people respect me for the work. Many people know it needs to be done. There's *zero* question that it is inline with policy and is the right thing. I've been complimented up and down by lots of people that I have handled this properly, civilly, and have at all times done it well. Should I get credit for it? Absolutely not. Similarly, I should not be trashed in public by people because I have done it so well. Yet, that is precisely what has happened. I became pensive about my fair use work some months after I began it. It was shortly after I had removed every fair use violation from every single userbox in existence in the template space. I, naively, thought that I might want to do something else someday on Wikipedia that would involve having extra bits. I recognized that if I kept doing fair use work, I would run into enough people that hated me for doing it that it would prevent me from doing other kinds of work. I decided then, after some deliberation on it, that it was worth the effort; the goals of the project outweighed any need the project might have of me having extra bits. So, I kept at it....and made a lot of enemies doing it. Why? Because I was affecting their ever-precious userspaces, which is predominantly where I worked (that and userbox templates). This isn't myspace. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Yet, the work that I did to protect the encyclopedia (which people in droves agreed that it needed to be done) effectively prevented me from doing other things on Wikipedia because I had to expend social currency in order to do it.
  • I am sorry that you are disinclined to appreciate my methods. I have taken no pleasure from stirring up trouble, and to take pleasure from it would be a very sick thing indeed. My every intent has been to improve the project. Some may not appreciate my methods, but these things need to be said. All of us must have the ability to step back and be able to refocus our energies on what is we are trying to do. Much of the community has lost focus on this, and the Essjay controversy is a blatant symptom of that.
  • I'm not going to say I'm better than anyone else because I have stepped back and refocused, deciding that doing the right thing should always trump whether someone likes you or not. But, I am disappointed that so few people are willing to step back and ignore the fatally flawed system of social currency. I'll grant it feels dangerous to do so. It feels like you are giving up so much to stand up and say "This is ridiculously stupid, wrong, and we should be ashamed". There are very few people here who, because of this social currency system, feel free enough to stand up and say things are wrong. I'm hard pressed to think beyond Jimbo who these people might be. He is free. He can do what is right for the project. Anyone else stands to be treated very poorly if they do the right thing. Anyone.
  • Stepping down from adminship was a calculated move to give me the freedom necessary to do what the right things are. I am not the only one who has ever done this. I am sorely disappointed that several people have made implied threats of blocking me because I have taken the stance that I have, should I continue on with voicing it. In the end, so long as I follow our common practices in terms of not stepping over any block-worthy lines, there is nothing that anyone can do to me. I am still a member of this project in good standing. People might not like what I say. They might not like how I say it. But, I have the freedom to say it now. The sad thing is virtually everybody here is handcuffed in their ability to say anything controversial because of the social currency system.
  • I am sorry if this all means you or anyone else has lost respect for me. In the end, I consider the goals of the project more important than having anybody's respect. I grant that having that respect could be useful to achieving some ends towards the project goals, but what I have to say is so in opposition to commonly held beliefs here that having the respect is incompatible with saying it. The truths are too painful.
  • Am I wrong in all of this? Maybe. I could just be a gibbering idiot with a sandwich board on me saying "The end of Wikipedia is nigh! Repent!" Alternatively, there could be a few grains of truth in what I say, or even entire beaches of it. Take what you want from it. Lose respect for me if you want. But, at least take this; the goals of the project are being severely hampered by the social aspects of the society that has developed within it. Indeed, a group is its own worst enemy. --Durin 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice essay Durin. The shiney badges are a problem. The endless management and prettyfying of user pages, at the expense of editing the encyclopedia, is a problem. Empires within in empires, does it ever end? I can only assume they eventually go extinct or get knocked down (like Esperanza). How much of WP:WNP and other self serving type enterprises does wikipedia need? There really should be some alarm that stops people editing when their ratio of total edits to main space edits gets too bloated. Too often the encyclopedia is forgotten in the rush for those shiny trinkets. It is a huge distraction. David D. (Talk) 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(commenting as a non-crat, non-admin, non-clerk; nothing but just an editor). After going through the discussion above (which took a little over an hour), my understanding of the issue is that we are having useless bureaucracy. We trust people with our most valued possession (the free encyclopedia that we proudly showcase on the mainspace), and there is no reason we shouldn't trust them in other areas. Even when an article becomes featured by contribution of just half-a-dozen editors, we don't close that page for editing by others just because they are familiar with the topic and historically, this system has worked (in making the article "The best"). The /Assitance page, in my opinion, is a (near) perfect example of the way things should be: Anyone is still free to edit, but some people declare themselves willing to help with the backlog, if buzzed. If someone abuses the system, there are ways to deal with it. Assumption of either "bad faith" or "incompetence" towards new contributors should be avoided. When in doubt, consult WP:5. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Yes, I added a paragraph to that clerk page a couple weeks ago. Apparently what I added was highly offensive vandalism, and I should be permabanned for attempting to clarify that. My point there was that, allegedly, clerks had been telling non-clerks to get out of that page since they weren't clerks, in an offensive manner. So I tried to write something that recommended clerks to take a more productive approach, to suggest in a friendly way that there are other processes that need help more urgently, rather than simply send people off. If that wasn't clear, well, {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 08:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over {{RfA}}

There is an apparent dispute (up to the level of an edit war) over the format of the {{RfA}} template. Issues include, but are not limited to, making ;pseudosections into ====true sections==== with edit links, numbering vs bulleting of votes (or whether they are votes after all), inclusion of tally etc. Since my impression is that many of these aspects influence the workload on the 'crat-side when closing an RfA and that some decisions might lead to RfA consensus being harder to determine (due to lack of raw-"vote"-counters), I figured that bureaucrats might want to have a say. Feel free to comment on Template talk:RfA, particularly in sections "Fourth level headings?" and onward. Cheers, Миша13 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Apropros of this, on Requests for adminship/Ragesoss, User:Tony Sidaway has twice deleted the vote tally.[2][3] Note that his reason the second time was "Tally seems to be inaccurate", which seems an insufficient reason. Could a bureaucrat please advise on whether this is appropriate?--Runcorn 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a bureaucrat, but since the tally was added without consensus of any kind he has every right to remove it. And if you can't fix it, it might as well be removed :) Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the removal of the numbers expected to influence the actual process at all? If it is intended only to make it more difficult for bureaucrats to 'count votes' then it is obnoxious; we are intelligent enough to look for more than mere percentages, yet we do need some way of gauging where community opinion lies. I hope nobody is surprised to learn that this necessarily depends on numbers. If there is no way to quantify the support or opposition, then there is no way to compare them (except when the call is close, at which point greater discretion is permitted, but this is rare), and the decision becomes the bureaucrat's own rather than his interpretation of the community's decision. As for the tally -- it's often wrong, and I don't really use it anyway in closing a request, so I don't care too much if it goes; but again: will its absence affect the way users participate in the process? — Dan | talk 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not at all surprised that bureaucrats base their decisions on numbers. I am, however, gravely disappointed. This is not how it is supposed to be. Consensus is not a vote. --Durin 00:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What does consensus mean? Does it have nothing to do with proportions of support to opposition? If the outcome depends entirely on reasoning presented, suddenly it is the bureaucrat's decision and not the community's. Otherwise -- numbers obviously matter. I fail to understand this pervasive belief that consensus can be judged without quantifying the two parties; it makes no sense. — Dan | talk 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I understand your position. It tracks well with your answer to Q1 on your RfB. As I noted on your talk page [4], I don't hold you guilty of any misdeeds. This doesn't change the reality that your position is flawed. Consensus is not voting. Opinions of various parties within a discussion have to be weighed, considered, rejected, upheld, etc. I'll give you one example; Let's say you have a borderline decision case, where it is leaning pretty strongly towards lack of support based on pure vote counting of the group interested in the case. One of the people opposing is doing so solely on the grounds of X. The entirety of the rest of the group, including all other opposition, feels that X is a poor rationale for opposing. Discounting that opposition, the proposal leans strong support. In the current state of RfA, the bureaucrats would close as not having consensus. Reality is otherwise. This is a microcosm example of how consensus needs to be considered. It also shows precisely why the current voting format is completely unsuitable to generating consensus and why bureaucrats and the community lock-step with it being a vote; the format does not support consensus generation. It supports voting. Thus, it's a fait accompli that we can't judge RfAs for consensus without counting votes. Except, counting votes is not what consensus is about.
      • Matt Britt's first RfA was, in that state, not the best form. It was a first pass. More evolution on the format would be required if it ever were to become the standard form. However, the format strongly supports consensus generation. Instead of asking the community to vote on a candidate, it asks the community "Are there any objections to this candidate that have support?" If there's no objections to a candidate that can gain support amongst the group, there's no consensus against promotion. --Durin 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        Durin, are you really suggesting that the crat who promoted Danny is guided solely by number of opinions? Surely even you agree that there is some relevance to the number of members of the community who express a view? They might need to be weighed more strongly or less strongly depending on the experience of the contributor, or based on the validity of the reasons given. But ultimately if we want to find out if someone is trusted by the community, a fairly good indicator will be always be that an overwhelming majority of the Community if asked say "Yeah I trust him". I agree we should avoid a simple vote, but asking crats to completely disregard numbers is silly. I would assume that in any adminship debate (however structured), my adding "I trust this candidate" means something.... WjBscribe 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think extreme exceptions such as Danny, Ryulong, and Carnildo do much to shed light on the common practice of bureaucrats. Certainly Danny and Carnildo presented very unusual situations. If bureaucrats actually used consensus evaluation for RfA promotions, why is it not one single RfA at or barely above 80% has failed in the last (at least) 15 months? Numbers are useful for helping to ascertain general standing on particular sub-issues of an overall issue. They are completely useless for determining overall useful desire.
          • The current system has strongly supported individuals having a voice. This sounds good on the surface, except that irrational reasons for opposition gain just as much standing as rational reasons. Sure, we can argue about what is rational or not, but in a consensus building system the community...not the bureaucrats necessarily...get to decide what is rational. Right now, there's little in the way of effective squelching of ridiculous opposition. One person can say "Oppose: less than 1000 wikipedia space edits". In the current climate, this is acceptable as a reason for opposition. There are plenty of people who feel this is a silly requirement. But, the community has no voice against it. None. Instead, they are vociferously blasted for suggesting that a vote be discounted. Individual votes hijack the system. The result, we end up with a system where all sorts of idiotic reasons to oppose are copped up out the imaginations of people who have no clue what it is we are trying to do here; build a free encyclopedia. The community is utterly powerless to do anything about it. Not surprisingly, the standards of what is and is not an acceptable candidate at RfA keep going up and up and up and up precisely (at least in part) because of this effect.
          • Looking back on the first Matt Britt RfA again, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Matt_Britt#Nominee.27s_experience_with_XfD.2FDRV_is_not_sufficient_to_promote. 5 voted in support of that view, 19 against. That's a rather strong super majority saying this isn't a reason to oppose promotion in this case. In consensus building, this opposition would have little or no traction. In the current voting system, we'd have five votes opposing the candidate based on this reason. Of note, the current Matt Britt RfA has two of those people voting oppose. If we added those three to the current RfA, his percentage in support would drop from the current (41/4) 91% to (41/7) 85%...a 6% drop. Yet, a super majority of the community feels this is not a good reason to oppose.
          • Taking another example of how the 'normal' RfA is failing; Matt Britt's second RfA has an oppose vote from User:Fnagaton. One person has asked for further clarification, and Matt's provided some. The community has no opportunity to say "This is a bad reason to oppose; this user has a vendetta against Matt" or some such. So, the vote will stand as an opposition.
          • Here's another example. Significant numbers of people are opposed to Kelly Martin's wikiproject endorsement stance. If we gauged the opinions of the community, we'd probably see a strong super majority say this is not an impediment to adminship. Yet, her vote (if in opposition) has as much standing as someone saying "This user was blatantly uncivil, and here is proof (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). Once again, the community has no say in putting down opposition (or support for that matter) reasons as unacceptable. This doesn't just silence the people who support someone; it also silences the people who are against someone. Voting actively discourages consensus building. Actively.
          • I understand that the concept of consensus evaluation not being an up/down vote is very difficult for people to get their brains around. It isn't easy. Voting is sooo much easier to understand. Because of that, consensus as the method by which we promote admins has an exceptionally difficult time gaining traction. Yet, without consensus development we have some very serious problems arise; the community becomes silenced against the irrationalities of people who are not focused on the goals of the project. In short, we're forced to follow the gibbering madmen rather than our goal. --Durin 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
            • There is an answer to this in a voting system, which is to get more people to vote (supportive) on RfAs (our participation rates are very low compared to those on the German Wikipedia) and lower the promotion threshold so individual opposes do not have such a large weight. Kusma (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
              • I think in a pure voting system we should go on simple majority; this way, no one view has any more (or less) weight than any other. Right now, opposes have four times the weight of supports for RfAs. This isn't to say I agree with a pure voting system, just that if we were to have one, this is the way I think it should be done. :) --Durin 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh, and there is an example of an 90%+ RfA that was allowed to fail. See the history of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68. Here, the candidate looked like a sure pass at closing time, but late evidence caused an extension. After the unsurprising large number of oppose votes in the next 24 hours, the request was closed as unsuccessful. (De facto, the bureaucrat decided that the RfA should fail by extending it and announcing the extension, but formally left the decision with the community). Kusma (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Durin (in response to your first comment; I haven't had time to read the others) -- you mention in your example a borderline situation, which is just the sort of situation in which a bureaucrat would be inclined to look very carefully at X, and the rest of the opposition, to determine what is valid and what is not. I cannot see how this objection applies to non-borderline cases. As for the new format -- I have said I believe it is very promising, and I look forward to seeing more of it in the near future. — Dan | talk 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
          • If you could, please read the rest of my above comments. The fact that no single >79.999% RfA has failed in at least the last 15 months (Kusma's note not withstanding...I'm of course referring to when the bureaucrat actually closes it) speaks to the lack of consensus determination being used. Bureaucrats are empowered to make decisions about consensus, but it is not being used as a rule. --Durin 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) The belief is that the tally makes people commenting on the RFA think they're voting. Basically the same thing with putting bullets next to comments instead of numbering them. The idea is that if we remove things that seem vote-like, that... people will discuss instead of voting. The people advocating the changes still say b'crats will close discussions the same way. I think they want everyone to know RFA isn't a vote, by removing things that suggest the numbers matter. But obviously the numbers do matter. I don't think obscuring things is the best way to make RFA not be a vote, personally. It just makes it harder to see what's going on for everyone involved. --W.marsh 00:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BAG approval

Can a crat close this request at some time and render a decision as to the outcome and as to my addition or non-addition into the bot approvals group - I believe the usual cutoff is unanimous or near unanimous support. Thanks! ST47Talk 04:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of closing it as it was unanimous. To avoid any conflab, if a crat could check and confirm the result that would be great. --kingboyk 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Why in the world are bureaucrats required to make such decisions? Seems like instruction creep. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
They're not. Which is why I closed it. --kingboyk 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Badge wearing. Native outcome of human behavior. Endemic, and unavoidable. If approval is required for something, people feel good about getting approval. Why not just join the BAG as a good faith contributor to Wikipedia who is interested in helping out? Because that would give us a bot approvals group that had people in it who were not approved. Oops. --Durin 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This, like the clerk offices, needs to be deprecated. Overblown bureaucracy out to enforce/support itself. I expect the opposition to be acrimonious :) as are any group that would have its badges taken away. --Durin 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're a bit late to the party, but if you want to propose it's deletion/disbandment please go ahead. --kingboyk 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocklogs not transferring with renaming

Discussion started off on my talkpage - I've moved to Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Block log. Feel free to join in. Secretlondon 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Political theory and Wikipedia

There seems to be some confusion as to the role of a bureaucrat. The actual established role is this: bureaucrats are authorized to determine whether the community has reached a consensus to promote a given user on the basis of opinions gathered in an open forum. This means that if a large enough chunk of the community believes that a candidate should not be an administrator due (for example) to his only having made two thousand edits, a bureaucrat cannot do other than declare the nomination to have failed. To do otherwise would be to assert the existence of some consensus -- which is, after all, the aggregate opinions of the community -- where there is none. If this situation reflects a 'problem' then it is a problem of people, not of the metaphysical entity we call 'the system'. I have seen but minimal efforts to convince the alleged legions of wrongheaded RFA voters that their standards are excessively high. If the problem is as widely acknowledged as the reformers suppose, it ought to be easy to mount such a campaign.

If the problem is not so widely acknowledged -- if a large part of the community is really certain of the validity of their standards for adminship -- then either there is not really a problem with RFA, or our conception of the role of consensus (the principle on which we function as a community) needs fundamental restructuring to allow for decisions which result from individual wisdom and not from aggregate opinion, and/or from something less than a supermajority. The community could if it wished replace the bureaucrats with a body of users chosen specifically for their strong grasp of the qualities that make a good administrator, and entrust these users with the task of dismissing objections they found irrelevant, regardless of how many established users held these opinions; or it could authorize the current bureaucrats to do that -- but then bureaucrats would no longer be judges of consensus. It would be a different job.

The catch-22 of this situation is that such a change would itself require consensus, but I believe that is far from impossible. If there is really a problem, and if this problem is visibly detrimental to the encyclopedia, then the community is capable of solving the problem. We've always done it before. — Dan | talk 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    • At the risk of a "me-too" post I want to say that I agree completely. Beaurocrats are tasked with eetermining community consensus not making independent judgements on the merits of a candidate. In the absense of consensual guidelines/policies on whom to promote (comparible to WP:N or WP:NOT with regards to WP:AfD) their discretion is limited. I strongly support this system since the key requirement for a sysop is trust and their is no way to legislate that over (numerically) substantial objections even if they are, in fact, arbitrary or wrong-headed (e.g. 1FA). Further more, as Dan says, I don't believe that a new format will make much difference as long as people continue to use the standards that they prefer. Only by getting individuals to change/lower their standards can the obstacles to adminship be removed. Eluchil404 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ooooh... that last sentence sums up my attitudes towards pretty much all the RfA "fixes". It doesn't matter what changes to the system are made; people will still dislike/not trust editors based on one of any myriad variables. "Let's not display the tally" has no bearing whatsoever on someone who thinks "only 2k edits? Pffft, weak." EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've answered much of this with [5]. The comments above still descend from the idea that consensus is determined by voting. It isn't. The phenomena of the community not suppressing bad criteria is because the community is not empowered to do so. In fact, quite the opposite; the community is actively chastised for attempting to do so; "Stop hounding opposers!", etc.
  • I am not suggesting replacing the bureaucrats with a committee that ignores community input in favor of their decisions. I do believe bureaucrats are empowered to ignore votes that are patently false and/or ridiculous. Dan himself seems to think so, noting so here.
  • I do not believe the community is capable of solving the problem. In part this is because the community can't even agree there is a problem. Yet, the evidence is about as blatant as you can get. In fact, I don't think the community is even capable of discussing the problem. I am reminded of the Gogafrinchams in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe who couldn't invent the wheel because they endlessly argued over what color it should be. Yes, I do think it's become that silly. Case in point; the endless bickering over where the tallies should be (top, bottom, middle) and whether they should exist at all. The community can't even decide on that, and there's thought that the community can manage to be decisive about reforming RfA?
  • The current system strongly encourages the gradual increase of standards to the point of lunacy. Even in the responses above Dan, we see the comment that is all too common at RfA. In essence, "Don't you dare discount my vote! I have a right to how I think and I deserve a voice!" This sort of attitude would have us prevent the bureaucrats from disregarding votes that are blatant lies and deceptions. "Oppose: This person released personal information about me at [diff]" yet there's nothing in the diff releasing personal information. But, bureaucrats aren't empowered to ignore such votes. This is patently, ludicrously stupid. This is part of the basis of my comment (in abstract, not a particular person) of following the gibbering madmen rather than the goals of the project. --Durin 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Except there has been no such increase in standards. Your graphs are misleading. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Quoting myself, "In part this is because the community can't even agree there is a problem". You just proved that point.
        • Actually, I do think there is a problem, but the problem is not due to any increasing standards. Regardless, you are presupposing that there is a problem. You are back at square one then; if in fact there were no problem then it would be wrong to agree that there is a problem. —Centrx→talk • 22:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • In the first three months that RfA began, of the 21 RfAs with less than 1000 edits 19 of them were successful. The two that weren't were the only two with less than 50 edits. We even had three with less than a hundred edits get promoted. 19 in the first three months! Anybody with less than a hundred edits adding their RfA now is virtually instantly snowballed. We haven't passed a nomination for someone with lass than a thousand edits since August of 2005, more than one and a half years ago. Any assertion that standards are not rising is laughably false. --Durin 21:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
At some point people with under 100 edits passed, as there was no edit count criterion. On my RFA, the one person proposing an edit count criterion was seen as somewhat disruptive iirc. Edit counts caught on about half a year to a year later, I figure, and started out around 1000, later 1500, and now the number seems higher. At what date did the average required edit count become stable or start declining, and what is the current value and rate of climb/decline? --Kim Bruning 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The current limit is 2000 edits. No one since November 2006 has passed with less than that. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats/Stats. The time limit is 4 months, no one since October has passed with less. Majorly (hot!) 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Negotiated consensus is not supermajority, and therin lies part of the clue. --Kim Bruning 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Problem? What problem?" says the man standing in front of his home burning down. --Durin 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's an opportunity Durin. Think positive! ;-) --Kim Bruning 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how debate by quip is going to further this...I will say though that it seems like a case where a small group of editors is trying to convince the community at large that there is a specific (actionable) problem. No one has a direct line to the truth here, the best we can do is what we've always done and that is to find consensus among large groups of editors. You know, when you talk about the community not being able to decide about tallies it's not quite right. What's really happening is a small group of editors wanting to make an issue of them and not being able to get general agreement. That's not a failure of the community, it's a group of editors not being able to drop something even when it's clear there's no consensus for a change they want to make. Anyway, I think Dan has it about right. RxS 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Bloody hysterical Rx! Thanks for the humor! --Durin 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly why I wanted to stay out of this, luckily there are level-headed and more civil editors taking part that realize that those that talk louder and more often are not always right. RxS 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, I wasn't intending to talk louder or be less level-headed. I seriously thought you were making a joke. My apologies. --Durin 22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not being a master of the written word, I will just state that I agree with Dan and RxS. A small, but very vocal, group of editors is trying to make an issue out of what appears to be a non-issue when looked at from a distance. Maybe they think that if they blare their message loudly enough and often enough, people will begin to accept it? I certainly hope not. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • So you find massive backlogs, ever increasing standards, and people avoiding being an admin because of the hostile climate at RfA to be ok then? Oh forgive me, I'm blaring my message again. --Durin 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
See, Durin, it's this completely flippant attitude of yours that's so grating to many people. You get upset if people don't like your ideas, yet you refuse to believe that anything you don't agree with may be right (or at least not wrong). I never said that I agreed with "ever increasing standards". I think standards should exist, but I find some of the standards applied by some people to be a little absurd. I think adminship is no big deal, and as long a person has shown they understand the policies (generally by being here for a reasonable amount of time) and are a trustworthy editor, I don't have a problem with handing the mop to anyone. I agre that there is a hostile climate in many cases where some of the oppose reasons are basically absurd (such as requiring an endorsement by a WikiProject), but they way you are approaching things here is greatly contributing to that hostile climate. Can't you see that? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger, please. ^^;; --Kim Bruning 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "shooting the messenger", but rather expressing my frustration with the methods Durin is using in trying to push through all these changes. Rather than fixing anything, it seems to me that he's instead causing more issues and frustration than existed before. I'm fine with changes being propsed and implemented if supported by consensus (or even if endorsed by a large number of editors in the case of just trying things out), but this isn't the case for any of these as far as I can tell. In addition, the general impression I get from his comments here and in other related discussions is that anyone who disagrees with anything he's proposing is just plain wrong and not willing to try anything new. Maybe my impression is wrong, and that's not what he's trying to convey, but I know I'm not the only one getting tired of this apparent projected attitude. Showing even a little respect for opinions different than his would go a long way toward changing this, I think. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to your general impression. I guess I'm in a catch-22 situation here. If I disagree with you, I prove your point. If I agree with you, I prove your point. There's no way to adequately respond to this that in any way can continue discussion with you in a coherent manner on this point. Thus, I am not going to engage you on this point. I will say I'm especially pleased that you decide to attempt to shoot the messenger. I take it as a badge of honor that you refer to me as being flippant. If you think it is a valid strategy to attack me rather than the issues I raise, well I don't think I'm going to feel motivated to defend myself. Defend my talking points, yes. But not with you, as long as you maintain this attitude of attacking me rather than the points I raise. Of course, now that I object to your referring to me as flippant, I am sure there will be some that are going to jump up and say "You're too sensitive Durin! You're taking this too personally!" No, I just refuse to engage someone in discussion when that person thinks it a right and progressive thing to start off with calling that person flippant. When you are willing to raise your level of discourse, I'll be at your disposal. Thank you, --Durin 13:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Take it how you will, but I was not attacking you. I was pointing out that your attitude (not you) was flippant—a fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. Your comments here and elsewhere indicate that you couldn't care less what others think, and that only you are right. That's hardly a way to carry on any sort of discussion when you simply dismiss the opinions of anyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps RfA does need to be changed to one degree or another, but you can't expect a good response when you try to cram the change down our collective throats, or when you start playing a semantics game with the way b'crats resolve RfAs.
I will say that requiring a specific number of edits (rather than a history of really good edits) is likely wrong, though generally, more edits increases the likelihood of there being more quality edits. Requiring a specific amount of time could be useful in keeping those who have no chance of being promoted at that particular time from applying at that particular time. However, being here for a long time does not necessarily mean you have a grasp of the policies and guidelines on the site, though it does increase the likelihood of that. I tend to think that if a specific timeframe were to be set as a requirement, that at least 6 months of quality contributions would be a good place to start. Note that there are no specifics on the number of edits.
On the issue of whether or not b'crats have the authority to ignore !votes/opinions they deem invalid or unsubstantiated, it's hard to say. Currently, the system is set up so that if 75% or more of the people who participate think a person is acceptable as an admin, they will promote. Some discretion is allowed, but the current system is set up to count votes. There's no arguing that. The same applies to RfB's though the percentage is 85% instead. I think that b'crats should be able to determine the validity of the reasoning behind any opinion, and as long as they discuss it in a manner that preserves transparency, I think they ought to be able to disqualify any such opinions (regardless of where they fall in support or opposition). There are some who may not like this, but it seems that you want b'crats to act more like ArbCom in determining the outcome by weighing the arguments to determine which are stronger. Is that the case? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you not notice the 2nd and third paragraphs above? I'm discussing the issues here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice them? Yes. Read them? No. Why? Because I refuse to engage in discussion with someone who starts off flaming someone. Engaging in a useful, open, and honest discussion is not enhanced by starting off with insulting someone. So, I remain unwilling to engage in discussion with you until such time as you stop your desire to insult someone, and then even worse try to justify it as a "fine distinction". I could just as well start off by saying "Nihon, you're a dolt, a real knee biter, dumber than six sigmas below the average intelligence. Now, with that out of the way, let's have a pleasant discussion about idea X". Sorry, that's a pretty pointless discussion. Ground rules for debate certainly include having basic decency and decorum. You're not willing to abide by that. Since you're not, engaging in discussion with you is pointless. --Durin 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's try this again. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You have to consider what a "patently absurd" opposition is in practice. Is 20000 edits a ridiculous requirement? Probably. I doubt anyone thinks of that as a prerequisite for adminship. But what about 2000 edits? It is the same type of argument, but this time it is held by a non-negligible portion of the community. Some users think that a certain number of edits equals commitment to the project, knowledge about policy, etc. I disagree with that, but does that make their views any less valid, to the point where they need to be discounted? If they don't, where do you draw the line? If they do, why? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In consensus, you draw the line where a strong majority think such a concern is not an impediment to adminship. RIght now, the community has *zero* opportunity to say "That's a stupid requirement; discount it". Instead under the current system every moronic rationale has to be considered "reasonable", no matter how silly. I could just as well begin voting "Support: It's Wednesday, 22:27 UTC..." or "Oppose: Drinks Earl Gray tea" or "Oppose: Spells gray with an a instead of an e". Under the current system, there's no way to counteract that. Yet, people are defending this tooth and nail like the project is going to die because allowing the community, through a consensus mechanism, could say "No, that's absurd". --Durin 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • read my comments in the section prior to this one. Votes on a person are bad. Votes on concepts might not be. There's a massive difference. --Durin 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily - votes on concepts to try to answer the fundamental question of "do we trust this user or not" will suffer from the same problems as votes on a person. Perhaps call me jaded, but I don't think it will make any difference at all. Any system that Wikipedia employs will suffer from the same "problem" (in quotes because there is no general agreement that it is a problem to begin with) that users will adjust to the system, and deliver the same results. If we go to pure first past the post, for example, I can assure you that there will be voting blocks forming to push candidates towards adminship and other kind of silliness. If we go towards pure consensus-building, with an indefinite period of discussion, there will be users who block every single RfA with the excuse that admins are evil. True, those are two extremes, but there are significant disadvantages to all proposals I've seen so far. For example, in your latest idea, I could agree that a candidate does not comment on XFDs, but disagree on whether that is relevant or not for the future of the RFA. We could disagree that the candidate does not comment on RFAs, but agree on whether that is relevant towards adminship. Overall, I don't think that such a change would be that useful, sadly, as they boil down to differences in opinion. Since consensus boils down to trying to determine opinions, you can say "this opinion is not valid", but that does not necessarily make it so. Blatantly wrong facts are one thing, but incompatible opinions are a completely different beast. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok let me ask a question; We have a group of 30 people. 25 of them feel that X nominee's contributions to XfD are limited/small/insignificant. Of the 30, 27 feel that it is not an impediment to becoming an administrator. Do you a) ignore the 3 who say it is an impediment, or b) ignore the 27 that say it's not or c) ignore the whole thing and call for a straight vote on the candidate? --Durin 13:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the general opinion of the 30 users towards our hypothetical candidate receiving adminship? If the 27 say that the limited XfD contributions are irrelevant, but 22 of them think that problems with incivility are relevant, then we're back to square one. You're asking a lot of "issue" questions to avoid asking the really important question: "All things considered, do I trust this user or not?" Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you would allow a person not to pass based on an extreme minority position that the near total group feels is an improper objection? Sigh. --Durin 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that is just you putting words in my mouth. If it really is an extreme minority position, then the candidate will not fail the RFA, because the near total group will answer the "Do I trust this user with adminship" question in the affirmative. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Next to objective issues visible to all, I have also talked with admins who point to huge backlogs, and who then break the rules (for instance on when you're allowed to run a bot) silently to fix that... and then outright lie about their actions to the community. So not just denial in the face of evidence, but also outright lies, all because admin workload has doubled in the past year, and conscientious admins are struggling to cope. It doesn't take a top management school graduate to see that that's not a sign of a healthy organization. --Kim Bruning 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan says above, "I have seen but minimal efforts to convince the alleged legions of wrongheaded RFA voters that their standards are excessively high..." The obvious place to try and get a message across to voters would be {{RfA}}. Unfortunately, that seems to be impossible. I made a small addition to the template, noting that oppose votes on the basis of candidates not answering the OPTIONAL (sorry for shouting, but I have to stress it somehow) questions were invalid. It only lasted for 13 minutes before someone removed it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Well the trick here is that you want people to discuss things with each other, so that the people with less good ideas will hopefully learn from those with good ideas. Current RFA's do allow people to attempt discuss supports or opposes to some extent, but this is not really strong enough. All you can really do is try to apply a method that mixes people together better.
If we can't get a major reformat out the door at this time, it might be a good start to at least have bureaucrats strike through vote-and-runs on closing.
--Kim Bruning 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A vote and run is the situation where someone leaves an opinion, and then doesn't come back.

You can't catch all vote and runs, but you can be certain you are dealing with a vote and run when:

  • A leaves an opinion
    • B challenges that opinion

...and there is no answer back from A by the end of the RFA.

We can then reasonably assume that A has abandoned that opinion, in the sense that they haven't taken the time to defend it. --

Take two

Okay, let's try this again:

Perhaps the RfA process does need to be changed to one degree or another, though I think that it's not as broken as some people are saying it is. The current system is not churning out bad admins, though (as some have pointed out) the current process may alienate some otherwise good potential admins.

I will say that requiring a specific number of edits (rather than a history of really good edits) is likely wrong, though generally, more edits increases the likelihood of there being more quality edits. Requiring a specific amount of time could be useful in keeping those who have no chance of being promoted at that particular time from applying at that particular time. However, being here for a long time does not necessarily mean you have a grasp of the policies and guidelines on the site, though it does increase the likelihood of that. I tend to think that if a specific timeframe were to be set as a requirement, that at least 6 months of quality contributions would be a good place to start. Note that there are no specifics on the number of edits.

On the issue of whether or not b'crats have the authority to ignore !votes/opinions they deem invalid or unsubstantiated, it's hard to say. Currently, the system is set up so that if 75% or more of the people who participate think a person is acceptable as an admin, they will promote. Some discretion is allowed, but the current system is set up to count votes. There's no arguing that. The same applies to RfB's though the percentage is 85% instead. I think that b'crats should be able to determine the validity of the reasoning behind any opinion, and as long as they discuss it in a manner that preserves transparency, I think they ought to be able to disqualify any such opinions (regardless of where they fall in support or opposition). There are some who may not like this, but it seems that some want b'crats to act more like ArbCom in determining the outcome by weighing the arguments to determine which are stronger. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NOT churning out bad admins? Huh? Please send the good admins to me. I seriously can't find them. :-( --Kim Bruning 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC) you may have heard me complaining about RFA being broken once or twice :-/
Are you saying the current process is churning out bad admins? If so, I'm not seeing that. All of the admins promoted recently have good records and haven't caused problems as far as I can tell. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Dunno. Are they at all useful though? --Kim Bruning 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think any of the recently-made admins are useful? Looking through several of the most recent ones, I can see where they have all begun contributing to admin tasks, which is quite useful. What makes an admin useful by your definition? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Comment_by_Kim, for discussion of my admin criteria. I'm looking for people who are willing to be creative and who understand consensus backwards. If they also understand mediation, boy do I have a task list they could work on. Basically, I'm looking for people who you could call instant members of the "core cabal" <cue scary cabal music> --Kim Bruning 20:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of NihonJoe's bit. RfA is first and foremost a way to ensure that a candidate has the trust of the community. Too often proponents of change have understood "trust" as meaning "will not act against the best interests of the project" but while this is of course crucial, "trust" also means "will not harm the project because of his inexperience". I think it's important to remind ourselves of that and understand that people who oppose on the basis of low edit count have this in mind. Even though most would agree that edit count or time on the project are rather poor metrics, they're not exactly irrelevant either. As I've mentioned on WT:RFA, I think we are deluding ourselves if we believe that making RfA more like a discussion, whatever that means, is unlikely to change the fact that a number of people aren't comfortable with candidates with less than 1000 edits. Pascal.Tesson 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you had a process where community opinion about standards actually mattered, than moronic reasons for opposition that had community support for being labelled moronic would be put down. Right now, discussion about the validity of opposition is aggressively, rabidly opposed. As David said, one moron-one vote. The current system supports this. --Durin 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's bad that people are not expected to discuss the validity of opposition (or even support, if there's an invalid reason there to discuss). I think if someone brings up something in an RfA that doesn't seem quite right, that others participating (including the subject of the RfA) should ask for more clarification and/or provide evidence to the contrary. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
But... where are the useful admins, Pascal? There's a number of processes that would be well served by having some clueful admins to help with them. I can't find them. How come?
Note that RFA is supposed to be a discussion in the first place. That's why it's breaking down now. That's also how people can manage to maintain crazy and unhelpful requirements without anyone else being able to effectively help them improve their thinking. --Kim Bruning 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following you Kim. Of course, it would be helpful to find clueful admins and I do believe there are a lot of clueful admins out there (I'll keep the names to myself though). Clueless admins actually are a minority but of course these are the ones whose name we tend not to forget (I'll also keep those names to myself). From what I understand, you believe that current admins are a bunch of incompetents whose population keeps growing because RfA promotes only clueless candidates, while the clueful ones are turned down. If these are really your thoughts on the matter, then I'm afraid all I can recommend is a little bit more sunlight in your day. Pascal.Tesson 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I can always use a little more sunlight in my day <beams>. I wouldn't go so far as to say current candidates are actually incompetent. They are certainly less likely to be interesting (chinese values or otherwise), or useful. --Kim Bruning 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Actual seriously clueful candidates have in fact been turned down. Including at one point a Foundation press coordinator at the time, who actually had the job to tell the rest of the world how wikis work ;-)
I'm not sure how you expect that changes in the format of RfA would suddenly make candidates more interesting and useful. I understand that it's sort of difficult for you to give me precise examples of interesting/useful candidates that have failed RfA or of uninteresting/useless ones that have succeeded but I suspect that a couple of RfAs that you feel resulted in the wrong outcome are perhaps leading you to be too negative about the whole thing. Let's keep in mind that whatever the RfA system is, there will always be promotions and non-promotions with which you disagree. Pascal.Tesson 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If it was a slightly wrong outcome, I'd say "meh". If it is a gobsmackingly tonguebitingly eyecrossingly weird outcome, I'm going to sit up and pay attention ;-). Changing the format of RFA won't have any sudden effects. What I'm hoping is that at least people will discuss with each other more, so that wiser people have the opportunity to enlighten those who need enlightenment. Whether they will do so (and do so successfully), is a question that only time can answer. --Kim Bruning 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You know of course, that there are gobsmackingly tonguebitingly eyecrossingly weird outcomes of any decision process. The question a lot of us are asking is "is the number of these so overwhelming that we need to overhaul the process". I'm not sure that solid evidence has been presented that the current RfA system is so badly broken that it consistently promotes admins which turn out to suck and fails people who would have benefited the project. Pascal.Tesson 20:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Durin has some hard numbers on that O:-) --Kim Bruning 22:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Password identical to username

Very recently (within the last 24 hours), all users whose password was identical to their username were blocked by developers at a technical level (they can't log on for as long as their password and username are the same), in an attempt to prevent the exploitation of old accounts with weak passwords.[6] There's been a Help Desk request from a user with such a password to regain access to their account; the user has over 4000 edits, but didn't provide an email, so they can't reset the password to allow logging on. As the password can't be changed, it follows that the username must be (at least temporarily, to allow an email address to be set in preferences and confirmed); would bureaucrats be willing to rename users for such a purpose? (I haven't mentioned the user in question here for somewhat obvious reasons.) --ais523 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The IT manager in me is of the opinion that anyone using their username as a password gets what they deserve. I would deny the request and tell them to create a new account. But I'm an evil asshole. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kelly. It is also the case that the edits are unattributable. Just about any edit they made, they could say "hey, that wasn't me! It appears that some malicious person guessed my password and made a bad edit!" Which is of course why the developers blocked the security hole in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If an account is compromised, it should be blocked. The developers have already done this; now a user with a formerly effectively compromised, and now blocked, account is asking for help in securing the account again so that they can continue helping (and is refusing to create a new account). Anyway, I'm posting this here to see what the 'crats make of it. --ais523 15:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would speculate that the reason the devs blocked this hole is the situation of Turkey where a banned user was using compromised aged accounts to circumvent semiprotection. I would estimate he has had over a hundred accounts blocked so far. This is just speculation, though. CMummert · talk 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know the person you are talking to is the owner of the account? Without a password or email address to confirm identity, there is no way to know who to tell the new username. The account is compromised and there is no way to identify to correct owner, so it must remain blocked. --Tango 16:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Checco. I didn't knew anything about the rule, but I can prove that I'm what I am: I have accounts also in other Wikipedias. I hope that the problem can be solved, 'cos I feel very desperate about re-start with another account. In this way all my contributions would be wasted... Pleas, help me... --151.16.141.62 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Tango: Normally, I'd agree with you, but because this user has a both-ways-identified link to an account in itwiki with the email set so it's possible to verify the identity that way. --ais523 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that as soon as his username becomes known (which it will as soon, at the very least, at the moment the rename is executed), there will be a window where anybody who is watching the rename logs can take over the account. Knowing that this is going to happen, I would simply write a bot that automatically tried to log into any renamed account with the account's prior username as soon as it is renamed, and if successful, change the password to some value that I would know, and the real editor would not.
There is no secure way to accomplish what this individual wants without real-time communication between the editor making the request and the b'crat (or dev) that will execute it, and even then it's dependent on the actual account owner being faster than the bot described above. (Such a bot could be written in a very short time by a sufficiently skilled bot writer, and we have lots of those around here.) Furthermore, how can we possibly know that the person who calls will actually be the editor in question? The only way to recover the account is for the account owner to convince a developer that he owns the account and reset the password (not the username). And my experience is that the devs are very difficult to convince. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the issue is problematic, but I write from a stable IP and my e-mail is registred in it.Wiki, in vec.Wiki and in es.Wiki. --151.16.141.62 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that a solution can be found... --151.16.141.62 16:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What about blocking the account, then doing the rename, inserting the email address via preferences, and clicking on 'Email new password'; then if the correct editor says that they got the password reminder (verifiable via it:), we know the account wasn't hacked during the change and the username can be changed back; at least this way we know whether the account was compromised during the change (the only private information that could possibly be revealed would be preferences settings and watchlist, as a blocked user can't do much else). The it: account should be enough to convince a dev in any case, although that could take some time as the devs are generally somewhat busy. By the way, this diff and this diff should be sufficient proof that the it: account is the same as the en: account, if you read Italian. --ais523 16:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks like you can provide some secret authenticating information: the email address(es) for the other accounts. But it would take someone with checkuser on all these wikis to verify that the same IP is used for all of them. You might want to see if you can find a developer (say on IRC) and try to convince them to do the checking. They don't have to change the password - they can just set the email, if they are convinced its the same user, and then the user can change the password that way. CMummert · talk 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to checkuser the accounts to verify they're the same because both accounts have already admitted it in diffs; I'm sure it would be trivial for the itwiki account to say "I'm 151.16.141.62", or the Italian equivalent, on request, so there wouldn't be a problem there either. --ais523 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping. --151.16.141.62 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no qualms with a dev-assisted recovery, but I wanted to point out why it is a very bad idea to rename accounts that are disabled for having the same password as username. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I assume that the password will be changed, as long as that can be done securely unblocking the account should be done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I had thought of the timing issues, but I didn't think of the possibility of a username-compromisation bot being designed for this... you're right, it'll either take lots of us all trying to change the password at once to beat anyone trying to hack into the account, or the help of a dev. --ais523 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be good to remove all or part of this section so we don't give people ideas on how to compromise an account. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just to make sure this is clear in my and everyone else's mind... There's an account with a known username and a known password, with a developer-added block preventing it being used. Changing the password can't be done without changing the username first or the help of a developer. Changing the username would lead to an account with a new known username and a known password, which would mean anyone could log on to the account, change the password, and introduce a new email, thus compromising the account. If the user who the account belongs to, or another trusted user, is the first to log in and change the password, then everything's fine; that user can introduce the correct email address and click on 'send password reminder' to safely give a new password to the account's owner. On the other hand, if a vandal's the first to get to the account, the account's watchlist and preferences will be compromised (as will the account itself be if we don't block it during the change to prevent it making compromised edits). Any shell-access developer could sort the whole mess out by inserting a new email address into the database; but there aren't very many shell-access developers and they're generally busy. So there's the option of either contacting a developer, or writing our own bot to somehow beat any hackerbot that's trying to get in. One option might be to alter the monobook.js of the account in question so that no email but the correct one can be set in preferences; because that's something only an admin can do, that would give the needed advantage over a hackerbot that would allow the change to be made. Nihonjoe: this discussion isn't too much of a risk, because the challenge is to come up with a method of restoring access to the account that doesn't leave the risk of it being compromised (security through obscurity is probably a bad idea in this case, because a high amount of technical skill would be needed to to the compromising anyway). --ais523 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have now written such a script to prevent the account being compromised and to set the email to the correct one, and tested it on my own alternate account; it does the job of forcibly changing the email pretty effectively (so effectively, in fact, that I had to delete the script pretty soon afterwards both to avoid WP:BEANS problems and to make the account usable again). The main problem here is the risk of displaying the email unobfuscated in the user script for a while; perhaps a throwaway email account would be needed. --ais523 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? Are any 'crats willing to try this, or should we contact a dev? Has anyone contacted a dev? --ais523 17:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, the identity can be confirmed by the Italian account, so I see no reason not to go ahead with the rename. The user can confirm by email that they were the one to log on and change the password. If they email saying they couldn't log on then we'll know someone got there first and indefinitely block the account (and go and beg for the assistance of a dev, I guess). In general, however, there is nothing we can do. --Tango 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does any crat want to try this, then? Should I insert a script to prevent compromisation of the account, and if so, which email should I set it to? (I notice that no 'crats have participated in this conversation yet.) --ais523 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I talked to Brion about this on IRC. Here's what he said:
<brion-office> karynn: if he can reasonably demonstrate ownership of the account, we can change the pwd or set an email for him
<brion-office> but of course we'd rather not :)
<brion-office> cuz we're lazy
You decide what that means. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So what do I need to do? --151.16.141.62 18:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You could try emailing Brion. (The diffs I've given above should be enough proof.) Unfortunately, I don't know his email address offhand. --ais523 18:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Where can I find his e-mail address? --151.16.141.62 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Found it: it's brion at the domain wikimedia.org. --ais523 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try, for now I wrote a message in his talk page. --151.16.141.62 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't able to do it... --151.16.141.62 18:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
...anyway, thank you for all the help you are giving to me! --151.16.141.62 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Brion has solved my problem, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH!!! --Checco 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

BRFA flagging backlog

Hi - we've currently got two bots awaiting flags that have sat there for a while now - could someone take a look please? Thanks Martinp23 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Secretlondon 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does increased edit count really mean rising standards?

It has been claimed that there is an increase in edit count per RfA as Wikipedia has matured, and that this is evidence of increased standards. May I point out that an increase of average edit count per RfA candidate over time is something should be expected as completely normal, independent of any change in standards? If editors consistently edited at the same rate per day, and the time when one chose to become an admin was randomly variable, then RfA edit count would inevitably rise with the age of Wikipedia. Consider this thought experiment. Suppose the average edit rate is 10 edits per day. Than after the first year in business no editor will have more than 3,650 edits, and some will have less (At the end of Year 1 there will likely be editors who will eventually become admins, but haven't done so yet). But after ten years a few late-to-become-an-admin editors may wander into RfA with 36,500 edits, and on average every RfA candidate will have been in the project longer and have a higher average edit count than in Year 1, with absolutely no change in standards. It may be that there are real rising standards, but I haven't seen any proof of this. It's entirely possible that the supposed phenomenon of rising standards is in reality nothing more than a mirage, an artifact of a more experienced (and higher edit-count) editor base coming into RfA as the project gets older that has nothing to do with changes in standards at all. A higher percentage of 1990 cars have required repairs than 2005 cars, but that isn't evidence that 2005 cars have higher quality. Same here. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your story is explaining the increase in average edit count of the people being promoted. That's not, generally, the "editcountitis" about which people are concerned. The issue is that two or three years ago editors in the 1000-2000 edit range had a decent chance of passing RfA. Today, editors with 1000-2000 edits usually fail, frequently with low edit count cited as the major reason for opposition. The minimum number of edits required for edit count not to negatively impact your candidacy has increased substantially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet's promotion

Discussion moved from the RfA talk page.

I don't intend to start a long thread here, but I'd like to note that User:Rdsmith4 promoted User:Krimpet with a 70% support rate (counting Durin's comment as a support). I fully endorse this decision, despite the fact that I voted to oppose. Many of the oppose votes relied on the inexperience rationale, which was not obviously so. I just wanted to point out to everyone who complains about bureaucrats blindly counting votes that Dan examined the issue more carefully.

I think much of the controversy surrounding the adminships of Ryulong (3rd), Carnildo (2nd) and Danny (recent) had to do with the high profile of the candidates. Since Krimpet is a relatively quiet fellow, I don't think this promotion should make a big fuss - and I've already seen him execute a well-advised page protection. This is how RFA is supposed to work. YechielMan 03:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, now you will create a big fuss. I think. :) —210physicq (c) 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest moving this to WP:BN as that would probably be a more appropriate place, plus this page tends to get rather large. John Reaves (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate promotion threshold does not matter. What matters is to be consistent. Arriving at a situation where different bureaucrats promote at a different threshold, or the same bureaucrat promotes at different threshold depending on his mood, is a bad idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers: There was reasonable support for Krimpet, and while I cannot tell you the bureaucrats' reasoning for promoting, it didn't seem to me that there was any good reason not to. Durin and I supported but both chose not to participate in the "counting" part of the discussion--if you're only looking at the counts, as if it's a vote, this may give a misleading impression. Very few editors had anything negative to say about his editing. There is no promotion threshold because this isn't a vote and you don't need to treat it as one for your opinion to matter. --Tony Sidaway 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
But then all promotions should be done that way. If bureaucrats commit to a professional system where they always bother to do a very careful job and explain it to us too, that may be OK. Rdsmith's promotion was just sloppy. The last thing you want is a system where people pray for the "kind bureaucrat" as opposed to another more strict bureaucrat to close a particular RfA. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why pray? They're all capable of doing a decent job of it. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with Krimpet being promoted although I believe that the amount of support he received (and no I'm not talking solely about numbers) typically leads to a "no consensus to promote" outcome. And I think Oleg's point is extremely important: consistency and transparency are essential for the community to have any sort of trust in the RfA process. This means that decisions on borderline cases should be at least acknoweldged by bureaucrats as close decisions. Pascal.Tesson 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to expand on the above: there's been much debate about the RfA process, the RfA standards, the magical 80% threshold and the decisions of closing bureaucrats. Now, a lot of people felt that the b'crat discussion about the closure of Danny's RfA was a great moment in evolution. So I'd like to throw out the following idea. I don't think anyone is seriously questioning the practice of promoting candidates with support over 80% and not promoting those below 66% (except those that strictly oppose any kind of vote counting). So couldn't we start a little tradition where results for RfAs in the grey-zone are systematically discussed by two or three bureaucrats (it wouldn't need to be as elaborate a discussion as in Danny's case)? And before I get instruction creep tomatoes thrown my way, I'm just asking that this become common practice and a simple way for bureaucrats to help the community and the potential future candidates get a better grasp of the expectations. It would also help make close decisions more consistent and not so dependent on the closing admin. Of course, it requires a little bit of extra work for bureaucrats but then again, aren't we looking for a way to kill the "we don't need more bureaucrats" RfB argument? Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You mean like I suggested (among others) a few weeks ago?
YechielMan put it well, really. With a chap like Krimpet it's not a big deal. Nearly everybody like him so his promotion doesn't take a lot of discussion. Danny had, for better or worse, made enemies and ruffled feathers. And you don't have to be strictly opposed to counting to recognise that, sometimes, a good candidate will get a lot of opposes, and a poor candidate may get a lot of supports. We want the bureaucrats to recognise that and act flexibly, explaining what they're doing if it's a controversial matter.
Finally, this isn't about 'finding a way to kill the "we don't need more bureaucrats" RfB argument". Fatuous arguments can and should be ignored. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As Durin would say, you might want to turn on your humour sensor. Actually, I don't even believe that such discussions would be so time-consuming for b'crats since the number of such close decisions is 8-9 a month or something like that. In any case, there can of course be no deep comparison between Krimpet's and Danny's RfA but Krimpet did get some opposition from people who brought in decent points about his perceived inexperience. The fact is that we don't promote a user because "nearly everybody likes him" but because the bureaucrats have determined that there is a consensus to promote him and that was not so evident in Krimpet's case. Like I said, I have no problem with the end result but I do think it could have been better justified. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You probably have a different sense of consensus from mine. In my view consensus means that something gets done we don't end up with huge numbers of people moaning. While you may talk about numbers and whatnot, in practice I've found that a good nose for mood is more important. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"In my view consensus means that something gets done we don't end up with huge numbers of people moaning." Thank you, I've been wondering what your definition was for some time. Haukur 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the most accurate description of consensus that I'm aware of. Better something that we can all live with than a collective digging in of heels. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Transparency is, of course, necessary; I fail to see why counting numbers which, I get, is what you mean by "consistency" is necessary. Then RfA would be reduced to a poll and bureaucrats reduced to a robot. --Iamunknown 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already slipped so far down the well-greased slope that I wonder why we bother asking whether people have good or bad things to say about an admin candidate. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the process is horribly broken, and I have no opinion on this particular RFA - I just think we ought to recognise the large wedge of discretion that has been arrogated by the bureaucrats in recent times. A little discounting of opinions due to allegations of sockpuppetry here, a dash of discounting opinions due to reasons deemed irrelevant there, and a bureaucrat could justify promoting pretty much anyone. Is that is what we want? That admin candidates in objectively similar circumstances are treated differently according to how well disposed a bureaucrat is on a particular morning? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think bureaucrat's mood is a factor. More important should be a bureaucrat's ability to determine consensus. Our current process does a miserable, appalling job of supplying bureaucrats with the material to evaluate consensus. Result; it defaults to a vote. Reading the Q1 answers off the RfBs of currently active bureaucrats is...depressing...in this line. --Durin 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If you agree with Tony's definition of consensus then I suppose a vote makes a lot of sense. Pascal.Tesson 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oleg Alexandrov has asked me to explain the promotion. I fear this explanation will be boringly familiar, but never mind. Krimpet's RFA was numerically in a gray area; he had much strong support and a few mild objections based on time. I exercised my discretion. Nobody's opinion has been 'discounted' -- I read them all; I merely found the solely time-related objections weak in the face of the many points in the candidate's favor, most of which had a far more visible and direct bearing on his fitness for adminship. — Dan | talk 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps this is the way towards reform. Not convoluted RfAs, not claiming that other people's votes are discountable (or idiotic, as others say). And not arguing forever on whether RfA is a vote or not a vote (it's a combination of numbers and the strength of opinions beyond the numbers, I guess).
There are just two things one could ask for. One is that bureaucrats explain their reasoning in cases like the above (without waiting to be asked), and second, that there be some consistency among bureaucrats and from RfA to RfA (within humanely possible limits of course), so people see that the process is fair. And then perhaps the countless reform discussions at WT:RfA may decrease in frequency and people may focus on better things. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Amen to that. And I still think that we get additional consistency if more than one bureaucrat is involved when the RfAs are definitely in the grey zone. On that note, I think bureaucrats should get involved more directly in these discussions about reforming RfA since, in the end, they're still doing the bit changes. Pascal.Tesson 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I think every time a 'crat gives a sound and reasoned explanation such as yours above for a grey area promote, the notion that 'crats are not vote counting bots but rather people with sound judgement about consensus gets strengthened, which is a good thing. As Oleg and others say, please keep doing that explanation thing. (it goes without saying that I support your decision as well) ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Krimpet's promotion. Incidentally, I'd like to use the opportunity to just once bring up the issue that your own RfA, Pascal.Tesson, was closed as unsuccessful for reasons not entirely clear to me at a rate of 73 supports to 24 opposed (discounting the two opposes by user:Just H: [7], [8]). I appreciate that RfA is not a vote and bureaucrats take many aspects into consideration, but this was unsuccessful at over 75% support, and it contained two sockpuppet opposes, as later revealed. Is there any way a closure can be reviewed under circumstances like these? —AldeBaer 16:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that RfA closure was one of the most horrid decisions ever made by a bureaucrat. How could they not promote such a great candidate? :-) But seriously, while I'm thankful for the support, I'll run the gauntlet again if I ever decide I want the admin tools. I don't really like the idea of revisiting RfAs (mine or anyone else's) 3 months after the fact when we find a sockpuppet. As it turns out, there were also at least one sockpuppet supporting my RfA so it seems like the right thing to do is to redo an RfA. Pascal.Tesson 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that bringing up the past probably won't help much. But this example is yet another reason for why bureaucrats should tread carefully around borderline cases. Not following blindly the numbers, perhaps, but still, doing a good job at making sure there is consistency and an explanation for the borderline decisions. You don't want to arrive at a situation where people think bureaucrats promote erratically and selectively and don't feel the need to explain themselves (I don't think that's the case, by the way). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, they have to start somewhere, don't they? Currently, there is a significant amount of questioning made when there is a promotion outside the magic 75%-80% range (and see Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Flcelloguy for the barbequeing Flcelloguy took for moving the numbers a bit!), so in generally it is not done. Would it be (in the long term) acceptable for bureaucrats to disregard the numbers (as in not promote solely due to that), if they did it consistently? I've seen conflicting answers from the community in response to that... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Readminship question

Hello, it was recently brought to my attention after I posted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Croat Canuck 2 that perhaps it is a useless exercise since the candidate resigned his adminship voluntarily to retire from WP and then came back. If it is possible to give Croat Canuck (talk · contribs) admin rights again with going through RfA, please let us know ASAP so we can close the RfA. I'm assuming you can take his acceptance of the RfA nom as an indicator that he wants the mop back. --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any issues with Croat, although some people like to do an RfA to confirm that they still have community support, so it is up to him to ask. See User:NoSeptember/Desysop for the list of those who went through RfA and those who were readminned without it. NoSeptember 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-admin

Well would I be able to be re-sysopped then? My admin bid already is 5/0/0 and I don't see any reason why people would object to me not having the mop. If there is any problem I'm willing to go thru RfA, but I don't see any so I'm making the request here. Thanks. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support — an excellent editor, who never misused or abused the Mop; no reasons why access shouldn't be speedily restored, although an RfA to double check with the community would seal the deal ~ Anthony 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
All set, I hit the button and you're an admin again. - Taxman Talk 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but I wanted to support! JoshuaZ 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Don't waste our time. :) :P ;) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AGK RfA

Should'nt this be closed and the user promoted to Sysop by now or am I missing something..----Cometstyles 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The bureaucrats will get to it when they get to it. Majorly (hot!) 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Desysop request: User:Jiang

Another rouge admin - see [9] and Special:Contributions/Jiang. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's can't help with this, and it was already done by a steward: [10]. Kusma (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Jiang hasn't gone rogue, but that his account was compromised. Kusma (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry. You;re right. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I already got it taken care of in #wikimedia-stewards. Go IRC! --Cyde Weys 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response times are getting better: 4 minutes this time. Kusma (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a different time of day (about 1400 GMT rather than 1000 GMT, so people in Europe, Africa and the Americas were all wide awake) and this time we knew where to go on IRC to find stewards. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier, I think, but I don't remember the details. Why not give bureaucrats the right to desysop people? "I made you, I'll finish you off", as they say in my country. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If crats could desysop, then one compromised (or rogue) bureaucrat on a bot could desysop every single admin. That would probably not be good. --BigDT 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
But there are more stewards out there than enwiki bureaucrats, and stewards can do what you mention. Fear the Steward! ;-). NoSeptember 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Security for the proposed site security policy. See the talk page for a link to background events.

A hypothetical on transferring flags in case of compromise

Here's my example: I created User:Tekemobile[11] for use on my phone. I haven't used the account. It has a completely different password. So, should the main account that I have be compromised, would it be acceptable to flag the other account and change usernames to that one? Something I've been pondering that is much easier than keys and whatnot. Thoughts appreciated. Teke 02:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say you are just doubling the chance of being hacked, since you have two passwords then. It comes down to "Who is the real Teke?" CheckUser might help, but it wouldn't help anymore then otherwise. Prodego talk 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure you see my point. If the other account has a separate password (AndyZ's bot account didn't), how is that not a way of proving I'm the real me by logging into the other account? Teke 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that assumes your account is blatantly abused. If it is then then you can prove it, if it isn't... However,b it would work if it were obvious, but you shouldn't use the same email address, since if it uses the same password (or even if there is the possibility), there is the possibility both accounts were hacked. Prodego talk 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, given that line of questioning, your account might be hacked right now... If the account creation (Tekemobile) is in the logs of the username Teke some time ago, we can assume it is not compromised and is the right person as much as we can assume your account or anyone elses ins't compromised. We can never be entirely sure without checkuser evidence. ViridaeTalk 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose that my IP is stable enough that I could sign up as John Doe, make a contribution, log on to IRC, post with my cloak, decloak and reveal, and that's ample enough. All this verification talk is driving me mad, I suppose. Teke 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-adminning compromised accounts

Can I get a sense of the bureaucrats' feelings on re-adminning editors who were emergency-desysopped for compromised accounts? Assuming of course that the user can confirm to your satisfaction that the authentic user has regained control of his account, will you re-sysop? There is some expression on the admin noticeboard that someone foolish enough to use a password like password does not deserve to get adminship back, but I don't think there is a consensus for this (yet) meaning that such requests will be up to bureaucrat discretion (as far as I know). Thatcher131 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we take care of this on a case-by-case basis through RFA. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That may be an overly formal solution. A discussion of a day or two at ANI or AN (which has already started) should make clear which admins the community is ready to restore promptly and which they are not. Bureaucrats are selected for their judgment, they can interpret consensus from reading the discussion. We do not need any sort of precedent that emergency desysoppings must go through RfA, that should only happen if ArbCom requests it or no bureaucrat is willing to resysop at the user's request. NoSeptember 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to see what the community thinks first. It may be that the consensus is that they have to go through another rfa. I'm certainly not doing any today. Secretlondon 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Careless approach to security that resulted in such disturbances can be considered controversial circumstances. I don't think that automatic resysopping is appropriate here, at least without much discussion. MaxSem 21:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This reflects nothing about the people themselves except a slight gap in knowledge of a certain esoteric subject area. Now that we know it is a problem we can address it; we cannot blame them retroactively for not guessing the future. — Dan | talk 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The passwords they chose were not simply cryptographically weak, they were blatantly obvious like "password" and "fuckyou" and so weak that some child could have randomly typed it in without needing any dictionary attack. Having a password be something that not just any random person could guess in three (or one) tries is inherent in the meaning of "password" and the idea of it goes back thousands of years. That's not an esoteric subject area. These passwords are easier to guess than "Open sesame". —Centrx→talk • 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless strong feeling arises to the contrary, I would be willing in several days (giving time for the community to form an opinion) to reinstate the rights of any administrator who can demonstrate that the compromised account in fact belongs to him. They have learned their lesson; it is silly to punish them further for what they did not even realize might be an error. Believe it or not, many Wikipedians are not tech-savvy sorts and have not been trained in matters of password security. In future, now that we know this is an issue (and I think somebody has been e-mailing all the admins about it), I would be less inclined to forgive, but for the moment punishment is gratuitous. — Dan | talk 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems promoting any of the compromised accounts back to admin provided they can prove they are who they say they are. Raul654 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We need to make sure they now have a decent password etc. We can't just let them straight back as they may be used to attack us again. Secretlondon 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
But of course. That much is a given. I don't think Raul would act otherwise. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems sensible - one can expect that affected admins will have learnt their lesson, and will have chosen a stronger password :) Martinp23 22:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 said: "I have no problems promoting any of the compromised accounts back to admin provided they can prove they are who they say they are." I agree, how does one do this? Are admins required to reveal information about themselves to the Foundation or some other body for situations like this? There doesn't seem to be any easy way to accomplish this, as I see Tony the Marine is requesting his sysop back, but no one is really sure if it is him or not. hombre de haha 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, if these people are who they say they are (and I see no reason why we should assume that we can be sure of this in the general case), then they're either stupid, lazy or mendacious. Why would we want stupid, lazy or mendacious admins? No harm in putting them through RFA again. In fact I find it frankly unbelievable that some bureaucrats are suggesting re-adminning these people. --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What's so wrong about discussing such possibility? Frankly, when I returned from work and noticed this mess, my first thought was to resysop Jiang and AndyZ using my steward powers because things seemed to have returned under control. You shouldn't blame people for assuming good faith, no matter how inappropriate it may seem. MaxSem 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm none of those things, ( actually I don't know what mendacious means so maybe I am) but I have to say that I had a blank password for about a year. Of course things were different back then, but you know anyone can make a mistake. Anyone who has never done anything foolish is a liar. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is equivocation. I've outlined two reasons why we cannot trust an admin account compromised in this way: we don't know who it is, and whoever originally held the account either doesn't care about security or they're too stupid to know. It's not a matter of saying "this is a foolosh person and we must punish them." It's simply saying "We don't know who this is and the account was compromised by a blatantly negligent act." The conclusions follow. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, people are not incurably stupid, because they do a stupid thing. I know some bright people that keep the key under the mat, they are clueless about security, but they are still brighter than me. If someone has made a gaff about a password (and mine used to be 'glasgow123') does that make them unfit to be an admin. Hardly, we've got plenty people who, in my opinion, are too thick to be admins - most of them probably have brilliant passwords. Someone who has made this mistake is not going to make it again. Desysopping should be preventative not punitive .... what's to prevent?--Docg 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser should be useful here. If they're editing from the IPs they used to edit with before today, and those IPs are substantially different from the ones that performed the vandalism today, that should be good evidence. That's actually one of the main issues with BuickCenturyDriver. As to TonySidaway's comment - yes, they made a mistake. People make mistakes, even admins. We generally don't desysop people for a single good faith mistake. If they aren't indicating they're going to keep repeating the problem, yes, they should get their bit back. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, do you think wikidrama at RfA is a good thing? The desysoppings are preventative, once the password issue is taken care of, what do we have left to prevent by keeping them desysopped? We can give them a tongue lashing and then move on. NoSeptember 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
About checkuser, there are no IPs still in the logs for AndyZ, as they are expunged after a certain amount of time, so there is no way to ID him, and any other admin on a long break, through their IP. This is a rather insecure way to ID people anyway. Tony makes a good case that they should go through RFA again. If consensus is the issue with re sysopping these people, then RFA seems to be the best course of action. hombre de haha 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

These people should have known better than to use an insecure password for such an important account. How can we trust these people to be an admin once again? Their failure to take adequate security measures caused substantial damage to the encyclopedia. // Pilotguy 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Noseptember's comment is the important one here:

The desysoppings are preventative, once the password issue is taken care of, what do we have left to prevent by keeping them desysopped?

If we resysop them, we may still have stupid, mendacious or lazy admins. The presumption should be that they should not be admins, not to punish them for being what they are, but to avoid seriously compromising Wikipedia resources. The community should be permitted to make the determination here. They can resubmit to Requests for adminship. It is unacceptable to put a sysop bit in an account that we know to an absolute certainty cannot be trusted, not for one reason but for multiple reasons. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is melodramatic nonsense. Under that argument, any sysop who has a weak password (as I did till today) should be desysopped for stupidity.--Docg 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Desysopping for stupidity certainly would be a preventive measure. hombre de haha 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's nonsense, or melodramatic. If an admin account had a weak password until today, in the general case we can't be sure the person who now logs in is the person we sysopped. The community should at least be asked if the current account holder is someone it trusts. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So, you want me to desysop and file an RfA? What would that achieve? If you can't be sure who I am, how could they?--Docg 00:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Dan and Raul654 that de-adminned admins should be restored if they can demonstrate (via checkuser) that they are definitely in control of their accounts again. I'm sure that we have some stupid, mendacious or lazy admins, it's statistically extremely unlikely that we do not. :-) But I don't think getting your password cracked is a particularly clear indicator of this. --Stormie 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Also, there are so many my password has been eaten by a bear, chipmunk, David Gerard! threads... El_C 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We've discovered admins with passwords like "fuckyou", "password" and whatnot. This fecklessness has caused quite a lot of trouble that could have been avoided by their taking even minimal precautions. And the suggestion is that if they can prove who they are (which I admit is quite difficult) the bureaucrats should resysop them without further ado. What's so awful about asking them to reconfirm? --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "reconfirm," specifically? El_C 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Go through RFA again, based one comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure minimal precautions, check out the new captcha. (log out and put in a bad pass for your account). No more brute force for now (unless they figure out the captcha). My thoughts... give the folks a break please, not everyone on wikipedia is a geek/comupter freak/nerd —— Eagle101Need help? 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am opposed to mandatory RfAs; I appreciate the uneasyness, but Dan & Raul's position strikes me as most sensible. El_C 01:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The only question is whether the accounts are now secure. If that can be verified, they should by readminned immediately. Since we have never made a big deal of password security until today, it makes no sense to interpret this as their fault. We all know the trolls will come out if we make them go through RFA again, so why do so? To punish them? For what? Chick Bowen 02:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Tony and SecretLondon are in a distinct minority here. I think Tony is dead wrong - just because someone made a mistake and choose a weak password doesn't make them stupid, lazy, or malicious. At worst, it makes them ignorant of security - a mistake that, given today's events, they are unlikely to repeat in the future.

So with that said, I have a simple solution where Tony the Marine is concerned. His son is User:AntonioMartin. If Antonio makes a post somewhere that his father is again in control of the account, I will consider this sufficient to re-admin the account. Raul654 02:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a well-thought and uncontestable way of approaching the matter, and at the same time it's simple and most sensible. For what it may worth, I fully endorse it. Phaedriel - 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My father User: Marine 69-71, also known as Tony the Marine, has been very affected by the situation. Yes, he made a mistake and has corrected his password, hereby he is in complete control of his account. As his contributions (See his User page) can testify, he is niether stupid nor Lazy. With this said, I hope that his admin powers are once again restored. Antonio Martin 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored Tony's sysop powers. Raul654 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Raul654 said: "I have no problems promoting any of the compromised accounts back to admin provided they can prove they are who they say they are." And, of course, provided checkuser confirms s/he did not perform the rogue actions. These admins will, undoubtedly, read some password security webpages, and will create a better password. No big deal. --Fang Aili talk 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the posts saying that people be given back the sysop bit, as long as they changed their password to something secure enough. Insisting that people go through RfA just because they had a weak password does not make much sense. For the future, perhaps Brion could every now and then run a query to see if any admins have a weak password and request them to change it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Volunteers should not be punished for the malicious actions of others. I also agree with what Oleg said. --kingboyk 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand in this conversation, here's an outline to the sysopping/desysopping of the compromised accounts:
Desysop:
  1. By having had a weak password, an admin is not that careful about wiki-security, and thus needs to be re-evaluated by the community.
  2. We cannot be sure about the identity of the person claiming to be the admin.
  3. Rfa is not a very tedious process, and re-submitting them thru this process will help the community identify if the user is indeed worthy of adminship.
Sysop:
  1. De-sysopping is overly punitive, and not preventive (since the users in question have definitely switched their passwords to much high securities).
  2. Hacking of a wikipedia account was not highly expected; in the case of, say, an e-mail account, an user would have to worry about identity theft etc, but with WP this would not be the case. Also, there hasn't been a precedent for such until Robdurbar's recent hack (assuming it was one).
  3. It was never explicitly suggested as a guideline (like on WP:RFA) before, since no such event has ever occurred. It was just a mistake by the admin that wasn't covered in WP guidelines/policies.
I guess my post was ridiculously redundant, but I'm trying to sort out what community concensus is right now. Plus, I'm undoubtedly biased as a victim.
Specifically about myself, there's no check user evidence that can be performed, but I did happen to make this before I went on my extended wikibreak. I think checkuser can confirm my IP range to be in the 71.*s (its dynamic), or see Special:Contributions/71.125.65.64. AZ t 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
To interpret the "controversial circumstances" clause to include stupid passwords is a bridge too far, for me anyway. I'm sure the victims are much chastised and will have learned a valuable lesson. Xiner (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically at least, the ArbCom ruling about an RfA being required where an editor gave up adminship under circumstances of controversy relates to voluntary relinquishments of adminship (or other status). It was not written with emergency involuntary desysoppings in mind, and I'm not sure it can readily be extended to that context. Newyorkbrad 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; I just wanted to comment here to say that I agree with Newyorkbrad. (I'm commentating as a normal editor, of course; I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee when that decision was made.) However, I don't see anything wrong with resysopping the people once they have proven they are in control of their accounts and say they have changed their passwords. Tony, calling these people "mendacious, stupid, or lazy" isn't helpful here; could I politely request that you stop? There are other, more helpful ways of expressing your opinion than insulting those people who are still valued members. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to conceive of a situation in which a person could accidentally set a weak password, so I do think that personal responsibility (and in this case, quite staggering irresponsibility with Wikimedia resources) is involved here.
However I'm convinced that my view is a very small outlier, and even that my inevitable conclusion that the persons involved here are not so much victims but people who have been trusted and found wanting, sadly is in a tiny minority.
In Wikipedia:Security, a proposed draft for a password policy for Wikipedia, the proposal thus reflects apparent consensus here: that resysopping in such cases is at bureaucrat discretion. --Tony Sidaway 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think both arguments make sense, and I'm glad the decision is not up to me. The most critical element is proving that the original account holder has regained control. That will be most difficult to prove for AndyZ due to the limitations of checkuser. The bureaucrats may wish to hear from User:Mark (who gave Andy his account back) before making a decision, should Andy request readminning. Thatcher131 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Andy's been readminned by Raul. Jiang's identity has been confirmed by Dmcdevit, through checkuser. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I get my mop back? Dmcdevit has confirmed through CheckUser that the IP address used before and after the hijacking are the same. If this is not enough, I can find a Wikipedian I know IRL to confirm that I have control over this account.--Jiang 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for desysopping admin accounts

Now that we've seen 4 active admin accounts compromised, do you really think it is unnecessary to take away Sango's admin status? Doorspace 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'crats can't do it anyway. ViridaeTalk 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Only Stewards and developers can. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 02:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how the compromised admin accounts are relevant to de-sysopping an inactive admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If we made a policy to do this, we could do it. While I think this may have merit, I'm not sure why this one inactive admin has been picked out. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There isn't much point to making this policy. Deactivated admins can just ask for the bit again and get it under current practice. This proposal never goes away, but the reasons to not do it remain the same. --Durin 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Brion confirmed that an active account is more likely to become compromised than an inactive one (and obviously, a compromised account is unlikely to stay inactive) so yes, WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to "violate" WP:BEANS, but wouldn't it be mind-numbingly easy to crack an inactive administrative account's password? How many of the active admins had very weak passwords? Quite a few (though thankfully only a few were found). Wouldn't you expect an even higher percentage among inactive administrators? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brion ran a password cracker over all the admins, if they failed, their accounts were disabled until they chose "Email a new password". Prodego talk 01:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the initiator of this section has been indefblocked. TML 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User rename problem

I hope this is the right place to bring this up. I have User:Severa's page on my watchlist. She recently got a message saying that an article she had created had been tagged for speedy deletion. The article was called Bronze rule. It has now been deleted. She said that she had not created and never touched that article. The person who notified her then said it has been created by User:Kyd, and that Kyd's page redirected to hers.

Severa then updated her user page to say that her name was originally Kyd, but was changed to Severa in March 2006. I looked it up and found it was changed to Severa on 25 March 2006 by Nichalp. I can't link to the log, because I don't know how to get a log that just says that and nothing else. (I found it by going through the rename logs, 500 at a time, and using "find" on my browser when I got to March 2006.)

The new user Kyd registered an account on 11 May 2007. At the moment, there is nothing showing in the contributions of the new Kyd, as the Bronze rule article has been deleted. Regardless, it seems that registering a new account with someone's old name should not be possible, as a good user's name could become linked with vandalism.

Should the new Kyd be gently asked to change user name? ElinorD (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing would suggest that after someone changes their username, they should register the old one as a doppelganger. --ais523 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Logs for those interested. Oh, and what ais523 said. Best practice is for the person doing the rename to always bring this up, since the user may not understand the consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavia immer (talk • contribs)
The best place to bring this up is probably Wikipedia talk:Changing username. We've had discussions on whether to create and block the old name and it seemed that consensus was that we shouldn't. [12] Secretlondon 15:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and another problem is that because our logs are broken block logs etc don't move with the username so if the previous account was blocked it will occur on her record. See the current discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username Secretlondon 15:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please de-flag my bot

I'm taking a very long wiki-break where I won't be very active anymore, and I don't have the time to run my bot (User:Jayden54Bot) anymore. Please de-flag it. Thanks, Jayden54 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Secretlondon 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Jayden54 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed adminship

If any of you have not seen it yet, there's a proposal being constructed/discussed at Wikipedia:Proposed adminship. Some of the implications may involve greater responsibility for b'crats in the final 'vetting' of candidates before flipping the sysop bit, so if you'd like to weigh in, that would be helpful. Thanks. -- nae'blis 13:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe this has been rejected multiple times already. There are heavy reasons to not support this change. I followed it earlier, and I see no changes of significance since the last time. --Durin 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not disputing your general point (I think it's unworkable myself), but it would still be helpful for b'crats to weigh in on some of the theoretical objections. Some people want to make a trial run of this, while others believe it has been rejected. *shrug* -- nae'blis 14:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no change proposed or otherwise. Therefore there is also nothing to oppose or reject. It's an Experiment. --Kim Bruning 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What nonsense. It is proposed that a process be used now (even temporarily) that has not been used before -- this is by definition a change. People can oppose or reject the experiment just as well as they can the process itself, though I think they would be well-advised to give it careful consideration first. — Dan | talk 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    No, it is not proposed, not policy, not guideline, not essay. It's an experiment. There is no process that will be used in any real way. We shall use certain pages to do experiments on, but these experiments will not affect the rest of wikipedia, the community , or any user or admin or bureaucrat in any real way, shape, form or other possibly tangible or virtual way. There is no rule whatsoever that says people are not permitted to do experiments, (provided those experiments constitute no change to the status quo). If such a rule were ever to emerge, wikipedia would be in big trouble. :-P --Kim Bruning 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) The only problem I can see is that the experiment is called "proposed adminship" due to historical accident. Would you like us to remove the word "proposed" from the name, because it's confusing you?
  • The sole aim of the page was to mimic proposed deletion. I think it would, in fact, be helpful to go forward with the experimentation at a title that's not related to the previous discussion, since mimicing proposed deletion isn't what you want to do. If the relationship is historical, make it clear that it's a thing of the past. Dekimasuよ! 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. Alright, we might just do that! :-) Though I'd like to discuss number-crunching with you first, if that's ok with you? --Kim Bruning 15:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA that may need watching.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PaxEquilibrium - We know how his past RfAs have turned out, so please, can this RfA be watched carefully? Thanks, Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a 'crat's opinion on opposes #4, #6, #9, #15, and #16? They seem to be ethnically based (all five users have {{user hr}} on their user pages, opposers 4 and 6 and 9 haven't edited recently, 15 is massive hyperbole, and 16 is an obvious ethinic-related vote.) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To pass judgment at this stage in the process would be inappropriate. I have no doubt that the bureaucrat who ends up closing this request will give it the same careful consideration he would give any request. This would have been the case even had you not been so kind as to leave these helpful comments. — Dan | talk 21:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah well. I'm just hoping that the proper care is taken into closing. Thanks anyway :) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Early close on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Otto4711

I have un-transcluded Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Otto4711 because it had gotten to 1/19/3 so it seemed a case of WP:SNOW and some of the comments were getting a bit mean. What else needs to be done? —dgiestc 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be added to WP:RFAF as well. Majorly (talk | meet) 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RfB for Cecropia

As RfBs don't appear on the table further up the page, I'm adding a quick heads-up that Cecropia's RfB is now ready for closing. While it seems clear-cut, as I've commented, I'll give someone else the chance to close it. Warofdreams talk 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RfBs do appear on the original bot generated RfA summary page: User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. Perhaps it should be transcluded here whenever there is a pending RfB. NoSeptember 23:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And it is closed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 Done. welcome back! Secretlondon 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, welcome back to you - you've been doing some great work lately. Warofdreams talk 01:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Secretlondon 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

We keep saying RfA is not a vote. Yet the people who are called to assess the result have a template on their noticeboard that not only counts votes, but indicates depending ont he count what is likely to pass or fail. Would the bureaucrats please consider removing it. I realise the duplicate count' tool may be useful - but I'm sure someone could fix it so that it can stay without the robot counter.--Docg 15:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the colour coded chart was pretty useful. Red coloured RfAs with very few support opinions will presumably highlight to the crats that those may need to be closed early. With the other RfAs, the board gives a good indication of how much time will need to be spent on the close. A bright green 100% RfA can be closed pretty quickly so any crat around with a second can do it. The borderline ones are clearly flagged up by the board, alerting crats that they will need to spend more time consider those and that as such they are not ones to deal with if they do not have the required time. My understanding is the the chart, while not defining the outcomes, acts a pretty good overview of how present RfAs are going. I'm not convinved we should lose it just to make a statement about RfAs. WjBscribe 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You response makes my case. 'Crats are not vote counters - and need to look at the arguments on all case. I see no reason why the numbers would dictate the amount of time. Anyway, your reply is slightly disingenuous - red represents failure, green represents success - not 'difficult close' or 'length of time it will take to consider'. That's clutching at staws.--Docg 16:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The way RfA has worked so far, people have been promoted based on a combination of the number of opinions and strength of opinions. So RfA has always been a hybrid system (not a pure vote, and not a pure "not a vote"). Removing the above table won't change this fact. And yes, the table is useful, I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The table - and particularly the colour coding (can't crats read!!) sends out all the wrong signals. But I posted here to hear what the crats thought. Maybe we could wait for them.--Docg 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you suggesting there are circumstances in which a crat should not promote a candidate where all contributors to the discussion have supported the candidate? With due respect to the crats at either extreme (overwhelming support and overwhleming opposition) there isn't much for them to do - perhaps check that no new arguments have arisen that mean the RfA should be extended, but that's about all. In more borderline cases they will need to analyse the debate more thoroughly. I seems a good idea for them to know how much time a particular close is likely to take them. And the colours represent whatever people interpret them to mean - your interpretation is no more valid than mine. They are pretty well grounded in what levels of support people have historically passed RfAs with and are a useful tool to be used or ignored as people wish. I'm sure the crats will express an opinion, I don't see that this procludes others from offering opinions. WjBscribe 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the crats can answer for themselves - I'll await their response. I know a lot of people like counting things - but I didn't expect to be mugged by knee-jerking this quickly. Colours? Get real.--Docg 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's awfully useful. I don't care about the colors. Remove them if it makes you feel better. If you have a meaningful complaint with the way bureaucrats actually make decisions, please voice it; this particular concern seems to be entirely a matter of appearance. — Dan | talk 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No - but there are a lot of people who think RfA IS a vote - I just think it is better not to send out the wrong signals. Appearances speak as loud as words. I'm making no complaint about crats, who I am sure are able not to be influenced by superficialities, and are not so lazy as to use a bot generated table to help them make decisions.--Docg 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You still appear to have a lot of trust in this process. :-) --Kim Bruning 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you not? Please enumerate the issues which have caused you to lose your trust, and please help us address them. Your comment as it stands is thoroughly unhelpful. — Dan | talk 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Might I refer you to Durin et al's excellent research, which is published in the archives of this very page? :-) --Kim Bruning 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so nothing new. I wonder, though, what value you see in continuing to leave vaguely snide comments, months after the end of that particular discussion? — Dan | talk 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's more a deliberately vague comment which can mean one of several things, and how people respond tells me more about them. Interesting that your first instinct was that I was being vaguely snide. (There's also an entirely positive interpretation, for instance, as well as a downright rude one :-) ).
Note that the situation specified in that analysis is ongoing, and people are currently working on many different ways to try and solve that issue. It's quite current. It certainly isn't something that would go away by itself. You're weren't aware of that? --Kim Bruning 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Doc - So put a note on it which reads "RFA is not a vote and the information on this table does not represent any sort of final decision." The numbers do in fact matter to some degree, and always have done; the famous "bureaucrat's discretion" only kicks in when the community has not made a clear statement one way or the other, and this has always been judged more or less numerically. Nobody has come up with a better way to which the community can agree. I am as ever open to suggestions.
The precise range which is considered discretionary has varied; I can see on this basis a valid argument for removing the colors. Very well. The rest of the information on the table, however, is immensely useful. I hardly need protest that nobody makes a decision merely or even partially on the basis of this information, but it is helpful if nothing else for separating those which will probably on examination turn out to be clear successes or clear failures from those which will require more attention. — Dan | talk 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, has anyone thought about removing the percentages, and leaving in the colors? --Kim Bruning 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're focusing on the wrong issue, I believe. Much more important than such facades is that in promotions there be consistency, transparency, and lack of favoritism. And in my view, there is room for improvement on all three. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, what would be the consequence of the particular suggestion where the percentages are removed, and colors are left in place? :-) --Kim Bruning 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents: people are always going to hold their own thoughts about RfA (it's too hard, it's a cabal, whatever). Changing this table isn't going to fix jack squat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA is a vote, everyone needs to just realize this is the truth and get over it. Calling it anything but a vote is asinine. ^demon[omg plz] 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason people keep denying it's a vote, is because certain people are threatening to kill anything that is a vote with fire, and specifically RFA. O:-) --Kim Bruning 08:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Close my RfA...

I request that my RfA be closed. I do not know what the correct procedure is to do so and therefore I ask that a Bureaucrat would close it as Withdrawn.

Please contact me on my talk page if you have any inquiries to this matter.

Booksworm Talk to me! 10:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on this, I've closed and delisted the RfA for Booksworm - hope you don't mind, just no-one seemed to be around! Ryan Postlethwaite 11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'Crat backlog

4 RfAs, 4 username change requests, and 2 required bot flags; it's now one of the largest 'crat backlogs I've seen in a while, so this is just a heads-up. --ais523 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be less than 12 hours, so probably a timezone problem (if it is a problem at all; crats can choose to keep RfAs open). Kusma (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
12 hours - on a weekend? We get many username change requests daily - we don't promise to do them immediately. I was offline for a day! (it's allowed..) Secretlondon 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You've been working your tail off lately, Secretlondon; you're certainly allowed a day. Chick Bowen 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA's; tallys and titular timelimits

Before suggesting the following at the appropriate venue, I thought I should run this past the people who may be effected by it. It is the case that RfA's remain open after the timelimit expires, and only closes with the decision of the 'Crat. (This is not about RfA's which are kept open at the 'Crats discretion!) Sometimes there is pile-on voting which changes the ratio of approve/oppose vote after the timelimit.

I am wanting to suggest that a note on the tally be made to reflect the count at the expiry date/time. This would then be available to be compared to the final tally, indicating likely pile-on voting/change of consensus. While it will be up to the 'Crat to decide if the "time" tally is of any import, and the validity of any post expiry votes, it would give the appearance to the proposed admin that there is a more level playing field. The differing lengths of time between expiry of the time limit and the closing of an RfA may be a source of discontent to a failed applicant, who may feel that the oppose arguments were given more time to build momentum (I cannot believe that any applicant would contest "late" approve votes) than in anothers case.

I would word my proposed addition to the RfA process to reflect that 'Crats look for consensus first, and the count second, and that "late" reasons should be allowed if of import as they would have had had they been voiced earlier.

Does my proposed proposal meet with 'Crat approval? Will this help with the decision, or at least not hinder it, and lessen an area of dissatisfaction for failed applicants or provide grounds for contesting decisions? If I have no negative responses then I will suggest the change over at the RfA talkpage. LessHeard vanU 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC) ps. Nothing to see here, Kim! Move along! (BIG GRIN!!!)

Fair enough... And I suppose the suggestee is often a new(ly failed) admin? LessHeard vanU 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Often that is the case, yes. It's a very difficult sell around here to argue that additional time and input are bad things in what is (supposed to be) a consensus-driven process. Think of the closing time as a 'close no sooner than' time.
Now, if there is some evidence or indication that a massive, last-minute influx of !votes is driven by some sort of on- or off-wiki campaigning or by sock- or meatpuppetry, that's a different kettle of fish. The closing bureaucrat should be advised of such unusual circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well said. - Taxman Talk 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I quite like the idea of "close no sooner than..." as a wording (since early withdrawals both by the nominated editor and 'Crat decision are already covered) which assuages anxious would be admins and also gives flexibility to 'Crats with heavy workloads. Should this be suggested as an amendment to the wording within the process? LessHeard vanU 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
In an ostensibly consensus-driven procedure, we needn't be quite that compulsive about time. If we were to be strict, that would invalidate two promotions I pushed the button for recently. One was about 15 minutes early, the other 30 minutes early. Why? Because I was closing a promotion past time and was able to take care of the advantage of economy of scale to process all three at once. The "early" closures were both not in doubt, in fact they were unanimous. I can't speak for other 'crats but, in point of fact, there were nominations in the past where a sudden shift in the support/oppose balance occurred after closing time. In those cases, I applied remedies such as analysis of the nature of the post-closing opinions, tracking down possible vote-stuffing or meat-puppeting, and sometimes extending the RfA for 24 to 48 hours to allow balance to assert itself. -- Cecropia 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Renaming against policy

On Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations User:Beneaththelandslide has asked to usurp User:Michael, a username with 1016 edits. This is against policy which says that only usernames with no edits whatsoever can be usurped. I have rejected it on those grounds but the user wishes to appeal to a "higher authority". The user's argument is that Micheal is a blocked user, a sockpuppet of banned user User:Mike Garcia. Policy is that usernames that have been blocked cannot be usurped either and block logs do not move with usernames.

As the user would like a second opinion could someone else look at it. I'm not sure who the higher authority they could appeal to is - they basically want a change of policy. User:Jimbo? Regardless I see this as fairly clear cut. Secretlondon 11:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Arbcom for an appeal. I'm pretty sure they'll reject the request without hesitation. --Tango 11:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're quite right, Secretlondon. At least in theory I could back you up or maybe do "best two out of three [bureaucrats]." However, that would be a bad precedent and certainly lead to 'crat shopping and lots more frivolous complaints. The disgruntled editor can go to ArbCom or to Jimbo but I'm confident he won't find any satisfaction there. B'crat decisions should only possibly be overthrown for clear and overwhelming failure to follow policy or malfeasance. Appeals should not change policy, the community is supposed to do that. -- Cecropia 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said I think this is clear cut and fails on several grounds (block log and editing). I've suggested the arb comm. Secretlondon 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree; that username has a notorious history and it would be quite inappropriate to allow it to be usurped. — Dan | talk 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the right place to ask, but I, too, would like a second opinion, but only because Secretlondon stated that while she would not perform my usurpation request, someone else may do so. The circumstances vary significantly from the above situation. I also apologize if this is an inappropriate action on my part. Thank you. EleosPrime 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The username you wished to usurp has two edits. Deleted edits don't show of course - and if undeleted would be allocated to you as far as I know. It was suggested that it could be covered by discretion, ignore all rules etc. Secretlondon 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am new to the culture of Wikipedia on the whole, but ignore all rules seems to make sense to me considering that the two edits consisted of user:Eleos making two attempts to type the words 'let's see' in bold in the sandbox, and succeeding on the second attempt. I had stated earlier that I could understand the 'no edits whatsoever' rule making sense in terms of even one useful edit in mainspace, but does it make sense in light of two test edits? EleosPrime 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, policy is very clear that only accounts with absolutely no edits can be usurped. There is an argument for changing that policy, but it would require a lot of discussion. --Tango 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is where I start to be confused about how things work around here. The ignore all rules policy is just as clear. I would like to usurp an unused username, and I am actively improving Wikipedia. What happens when two clear policies are in direct conflict? EleosPrime 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
IAR is always a matter of personal discretion. It is generally intended for when the policy was written without a particular circumstance in mind - if policy specifically addresses the situation, you should generally follow policy. The main problem with usurping accounts that have edits is one of licensing. The GDFL requires all edits to be accurately attributed, while that isn't impossible to achieve when usurping, it is difficult. When the policy was discussed, various exceptions were discussed and were all rejected. I'm pretty confident that there is no consensus to usurp accounts with edits, under any circumstances. --Tango 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
IAR applies to improving the encyclopedia. Usurping accounts is irrelevant (you can improve the encyclopedia without having your "ideal" username). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. EleosPrime 15:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a general comment on this: this shouldn't be done. I was around when WP:USURP was being discussed and helped out with it. The only reason it actually became policy was because we steered *completely* clear of the issues of usurping accounts with edits, both to prevent abuse, stay within the stated goals, and just avoid the many problems with GFDL and whatnot. To try to get around it is to seriously violate the spirit and understanding in which it was accepted. Just don't. If it's to be done, the words usurpation should be nowhere near it and the renamings done for some other reason. --Gwern (contribs) 16:29 23 May 2007 (GMT)

There seems to be some confusion here. The usurpation "policy", established under the guidance of Essjay, should never have been called a policy. It is a policy in the same sense that the exclusive legitimacy of the RFA process for choosing administrators is a policy: it's simply the way a particular process page works. This particular rule seems generally to be considered fairly inviolable; fair enough -- but one rule does not necessitate a Policy. We've got too many of them anyway. — Dan | talk 16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "policy" being refered to reflects the rules most crats apply when deciding whether to accept or reject requests made at WP:CHU/U. I don't see that it fetters Bureaucrats' discretions to rename accounts outside that system it merely provides a way of pocessing routine requests. No rule says that a Bureaucrat can only rename an account if a request was listed at WP:CHU or WP:CHU/U and complied with the guidance on those pages (though obviously they are answerable for any renames they choose to perform)... WjBscribe 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing that has not been mentioned, though; in the rename of User:Michael, and many others under similar circumstances: accounts that have logged actions should never be usurped. There is no mechanism to update logs after they are created, in case accounts are renamed, as bug 7011 explains. Similarly, there is no way to check for the existence of deleted contributions, which are not reattributed during a rename operation; this can cause GFDL issues. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regards to an RfA

I'm sure a 'crat is going to find out one way or another, but just wanted to note that Hdt83 has withdrawn his/her nom. Sr13 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I closed it. Withdrawn noms can be closed by anyone (or almost anyone). —Kurykh 02:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and since these requests keep coming up, I added a line to User:NoSeptember/RfA maintenance on closing withdrawn RfAs. NoSeptember 05:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for re-sysopping

I had requested de-sysopping on May 21 as I was prepared to leave Wikipedia and shut down my account - accordingly Drini fulfilled my request. However, I have regained my composure and changed my mind. I would like to request the return of my tools, which I had voluntarily surrendered, as per this reasoning.

I had initially expressed a desire to abstain from requesting the tools back out of courtesy to ArbCom and the case I'm presently involved in. With full respect to ArbCom, I feel completely confident now in my ability to do the job properly, so I am requesting reinstatement of my sysop privileges. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Dan | talk 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this was a good move. He gave up his tools while a proposal was pending to have him de-sysoped and after his edits got oversighted by an Arbitrator over repeated abuse. It should have been left to the ArbCom to decide on how he should get his tools back.--Konstable 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom will eventually make any desysopping decisions. As of now, only one arbitrator has voted for anything, and that is for "no sanctions" for anybody. Proposals by non-arbitrators often go in many directions but don't necessarily reflect the likely remedies to be adopted in a case. NoSeptember 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - if anything can be learned from this Rfa is that RA cannot be trusted. I would not want him to an admin after he falsely persecuted some of us. he betrayed his once friend Ambroodey. He as shown no integrity, violated our privacy, and acted extremely uncivil as shown through this workshop. his actions have shown that he is not admin material and I feel he would persecute some of us again give the chance with his admin tools. His evidence and attitude have clearly he has an agenda against some of us.--D-Boy 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, this isn't an rfa, take your voting elsewhere please. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And what does this have to do with the bureaucrats? He requested his tools be removed while in good standing, so he gets them back. Whether he keeps them is an Arbitration Committee decision, not something the bureaucrats should be bothered with. (See also shooting the messenger.) In conclusion, please do not bother the bureaucrats. Picaroon (Talk) 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If the arbitrators wish to desysop Rama, then they will do, but it doesn't look like it's even on their minds. Good work Dan. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Since RA got himself desysoped among controversial circumstances, he should not have been returned the tools. However, a few more days will not make much difference. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said, if the committee find he did nothing wrong - which seems to be the case, then it really isn't in controversial circumstances. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to register my protest against bureaucrats assuming the role of the Arbitration Committee. This sort of decision should not be at the discretion of individual bureaucrats, nor even be left to the discretion of bureaucrats "acting as a committee," but to the Arbitration Committee. El_C 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee are still free to lash the desysoppings out if they want to, but I don't see on the proposed descision, nor was there any comment on Rama's original voluntary desysopping. It seems to be, the arbs did not feel Rama's conduct warrented a desysopping - so of course, if he wanted his bit back, all he had to do was ask. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that's true for opposite land, but if the voluntary desysoping took place under controversial ciscumstances, then bureaucrats do not get to decide first. If it wasn't controversial and I am mistaken in that assumption (I'm not a hundred percent sure), than it was fine. El_C 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We will only return the tools if the user gave them up in uncontroverted circumstances. This is not something Bureaucrats started doing on their own, but rather an undertanding that arose from a decision by the ArbCom itself. Uncontroverted, however, means not only that the user hadn't yet been sanctioned formally, but also that no proverbial shadow was surrounding the user and the circumstances in which adminship was given up. That is not to say that it is required that the user was never involved in anything even mildly uncontroverted also — there have been cases where the admin felt discouraged by a situation that had a degree of controversy, but not enough that s/he would have to give up their tools, and gave up the tools anyway. The current understanding has been that situations like that still allow adminship to be returned upon request.
But we can make mistakes as well. Dan probably didn't notice that there was a case pending against Rama's arrow. If there was controversy, then we cannot return adminship automatically, regardless of whether or not the user gave it up voluntarily. Maybe the Community will prefer to wait for the outcome of the RfAr and take it from there; But if not, then anyone is entitled to inform ArbCom that the user was accidentally resysopped, and any ArbCom member will post on Meta asking a Steward to desysop immediately, since the resysopping was an error in judgement, or more plainly, an honest mistake on the part of a Bureaucrat. It happens; it's rare, but anyone is susceptible to mistakes. That doesn't take away the merit of our current position that, in case of a legitimate, uncontroverted, voluntary desysopping (such as in the case of burnout), the user is allowed to request resysopping without the need of consulting ArbCom or going through another RfA. All in all, this is a sensible, useful procedure that can keep us from losing perfectly good admins. Redux 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


The ArbCom has not been so clear on all of this anyway, a point I made here: Two contradictory principles? In any case where there is no clear dark cloud over someone and ArbCom is silent on the subject, who else should we trust with these decisions than the people we have selected to make these decisions, the bureaucrat. None of these decisions are irreversable. ArbCom can always make up its mind one way or the other at any time it chooses to do so. Until then, the bureaucrat should use their own judgment rather than try to rely on vague principles of old ArbCom cases that are not clearly defined, though certainly considering those decisions in the process. The cases where there is a real dark cloud over someone will be quite clear. There was nothing like that in this case. NoSeptember 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the principle established in the so-called Giano case, I am sure, was to avoid a scenario where a beseiged administrator (or other functionary) surrenders the tools under controversial circumstances such as an arbitration case, to avoid ArbCom's addressing the question of whether desysopping is warranted and thus to avoid a possible desysopping, only to then quietly request the tools back after the case is over and the fuss has died down. That danger is not present here, where the admin in question was desysopped and then resysopped while the case was still pending, and thus ArbCom has a full opportunity to take whatever action it deems appropriate. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This causes an interesting question: if an admin resigns adminship "under a cloud", and automatic resysopping is refused by a bureaucrat, what would the ArbCom do if it didn't find any evidence of administrative abuse? Would ArbCom resysop the former admin in that case? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this situation has arisen yet, so I can't speak for how the arbitrators would respond if such a situation were presented to them. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There really is no issue in this situation: "controversy" is not meant to imply inequivocal guilt on the part of the admin. Only that the existence of a controversy, which may well mean a situation in which doubt still remains, and where an automatic resysopping, done unilaterally by a Bureaucrat, may stir further controversy, precludes the possibility of resysopping upon request. However, if the controversy in question is a pending case before ArbCom, once the Committee renders a decision, and if this decision is favorable to the admin (effectively clearing his or her name), then a member of ArbCom will contact a Bureaucrat and the tools will be returned by decision of the ArbCom. That is not automatic resysopping, which would have been denied earlier because the circumstances of the admin's stepping down did not allow for it to happen. The fact that it may not be possible to reinstate adminship upon request is but a result of the circumstances, not judgement of the admin's fault (or lack thereof) in the situation that led to the desysopping — in other words, the Bureaucrat will have judged only whether or not the circumstances in which the admin resigned were of such a nature that automatic resysopping would be possible; it is by no means a judgement of whether or not the admin was really at fault or whether or not s/he should suffer any further sanction. Redux 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Too open to loose interpretation. If there is doubt, direct the user to seek clarification from the AC first. El_C 17:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule is that if someone resigns during an arbcom case to avoid desysopping, they can't get their admin bit back without arbcom's blessing. But in this instance, the case is still ongoing, so does it really matter all that much? If arbcom wants to desysop him, they still can. --BigDT 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alert to 'crats: User:RubyKLM

I received an email and a note on my user page from the above editor claiming to be User:RN and asking that the "new" account be admined. I asked for the request to be made on the old account and the user hasn't edited since. Keep a lookout. -- Cecropia 22:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Check again! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I still haven't heard from the RN login. -- Cecropia 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Ohhhh, I thought it was the other way round, my bad - think it's time for that wikibreak I'm supposed to be going on! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! Take a rest, ace those exams! Wikipedia will still be here when you get back! ;-) -- Cecropia 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
RN's email is enabled. Why not drop him a line? If RubyKLM isn't him, that account should be blocked forthwith. Chick Bowen 05:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm; I'm getting suspicious. See the deleted edits to Taber Island; hardly seems like the work of a longtime Wikipedian. Chick Bowen 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I got the email. I'm hardly going to give an account a sysop flag on the basis of a random email.. Secretlondon 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
RN's last edit was in March 07 and seems to edit mainly on topics connected to Microsoft. User:RubyKLM seems juvenile by having a pair of underpants on their userpage (if something is "pants" in UK English it is rubbish). Secretlondon 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. . . bureaucrat-shopping. I've blocked the account indefinitely for impersonation. If it turns out really to be RN, obviously I'll be very humble and apologetic, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Chick Bowen 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Received another email (22 May) as follows:
As regards the RN account, I scrambled the password on that one. Don't bother emailing me through that one, email me through THIS account instead.
I am user:RN, and am back again.... anyhow, re-sysop asap!
To which I replied:
No-one can receive admin permissions on an account without satisfactory proof that they are entitled to it, and you have not subnitted that proof.
Do you believe that? My farmer father-in-law would have said: "He must think I just fell off the hay-wagon." ;-) -- Cecropia 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps sending an email to RN informing him of the situation would be a good idea in this case. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but, I've corresponded with User:RN in the past via email, and I've done some article work with him. I really don't think he would be requesting admin access like this -- he understands how Wikipedia works, and he wouldn't pull a stunt like this. -/- Warren 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

Cecropia started a straw poll here on Gracenotes' pending RfA. Sr13 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat is open on Gracenotes's RfA

Bureaucrat chat is open here in regard to Gracenotes' RfA. The reasons that this has gone to chat are outlined there. Please remember that only bureaucrats' comments are appropriate on this page and it is open for the sake of transparency. -- Cecropia 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACC problems

Possibly innocently, an account listed at WP:ACC seems to have been registered by a user other than the person who applied for the account: [13] (the bot that helps out there helpfully archived the request, minus personal info, immediately afterwards). It seems that SuperBall53 (talk · contribs) created Jlsatty (talk · contribs · account creation) from the edit timings and the history of WP:ACC, but using 'create account' rather than 'by email', so SuperBall53 has control of the account. Creating accounts on WP:CHU is normally considered bad form, and this is basically the same thing (but with a higher chance it having been an innocent mistake, as the 'correct' procedure is similar to what actually happened); could a 'crat try to sort out what's going on here (making sure what's going on is explained to the innocent anon whose email address is in the edit screen for the diff I linked, at the bottom)? --ais523 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with clicking 'Create account' rather than 'By e-mail' is that it means that the account being created has the default password (which I will not put here for obvious reasons), instead of the password being e-mailed to their e-mail address. I have now changed the password and sent a password reminder. Sorry if I'm being a bit vague, but this is a public page so I don't want to go into details that could compromise other accounts where mistakes have been made in registration. Please feel free to e-mail me if you require further clarification. Tra (Talk) 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot about that. (I'm aware of the WP:BEANS issues you're referring to.) I'm going to email you anyway to sort something related out. --ais523 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How many bureaucrats does it take to change a light bulb?

My answer (other answers welcome):

Ten. 1 bureaucrat to wake up the other bureaucrats, 1 bureaucrat to consult WP:BULBS to see if bureaucrats are authorized to direct the changing of bulbs, 6 bureaucrats to determine whether there is a consensus that the light bulb should be changed, 1 bureaucrat to break a tie if the first six bureaucrats split down the middle, and 1 bureaucrat to push the button empowering an admin to change the bulb. -- Cecropia 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That is, of course, the definition of bureaucracy, so it seems appropriate. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None, light bulb changing is an editorial process. The bureaucrats are just there to decide if the rest of the group is annoyed by the darkness or not. --tjstrf talk 09:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One bureaucrat can install the new light bulb, but it takes a Steward first to remove the old one. Newyorkbrad 12:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WINNAH! ViridaeTalk 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't change lightbulbs, that's the communities job. Bureaucrats just press the button and turn it on once the community has changed it. --Tango 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BULB is broken! RxS 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, unless the lightbulb is fully protected, it's something that doesn't need bureaucrat (or even admin) intervention. Determine if there is consensus that the light bulb needs to be changed (some people may like editing in the dark). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even understand why this question is posted here. It's clearly a case for RfB (Request for Bulb) - especially since the old bulb was removed under compelling circumstances. Philippe 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Jimbo says changing a light bulb is no big deal. Casey Abell 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion here regarding the need to change heavy bulbs also? LessHeard vanU 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

*groans* ViridaeTalk 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of bureaucrats needed to change a bulb peaks at decaying asymptotically to 1 for Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we would tipically have our slav... I mean, clerks do it. So the correct answer is: one bureaucrat, and as many clerks as that Bcrat deems necessary to change the bulb. ;-) Redux 13:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to changing any lightbulbs. As we all know, lightbulbs add nine times more heat to a discussion than they do light. RfA/RfB is doing a wonderful <cough> job of promoting lightbulbs. Enough lightbulbs please. Would we please start promoting LEDs instead? --Durin 13:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That bulb you just changed is an attack lightbulb! Remove it immediately! *Dan T.* 03:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
And don't forget to add a spoiler warning before noting that a lightbulb has been changed, for those who haven't seen it yet. *Dan T.* 03:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course they haven't seen it yet! The old bulb is dead, so it's dark in here! You HAVE to add spoiler warnings to it! --Durin 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This entire discussion is vile and offensive, considering that it is exposing unflattering personal details of a lightbulb that is not a public figure. WP:BLB, our policy on Biographies of Living Bulbs, is clear. Pages that attack living bulbs must be deleted on sight. Of course, you can say what you want about a dead bulb, and it's not clear where policy lies on dim bulbs. --Ssbohio 14:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... so the answer is 21... One to declare the bulb to be an Attack Bulb and remove it, then go all over the building removing all other bulbs from the same manufacturer even if they're not actually burned out. One to follow the first one around putting all of those bulbs back (including the burned-out ones) because the policy calling for removing Attack Bulbs on sight is ridiculous. Three more to support the first one in re-removing the bulbs, claiming that the anti-Attack-Bulb policy trumps everything else, and that anybody who undoes it should be banned. Three more to support the second one, lightbulb-warring with the last three. Twelve more to express opinions in the debate that erupts over the actions of all the preceding ones. One to step in and express dismay at all of this warring, impose protection on all lightbulbs, and threaten to ban or desysop everyone who continues to fight. And in the end, the burned-out bulbs still don't get changed. *Dan T.* 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

/me awards one point for "then try to plant them for next spring". Well done. Philippe 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username

Any chance one of you guys could take a look at WP:CHU? There's a bit of a back log starting to mount up since Secretlondon went on her break, cheers. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{bcratbacklog}} to it which categorises pages into Category:Bureaucratic backlog. The Sunshine Man 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the urgency here? I don't see anything in the instructions, etc. about how long these should take. It looks like the current backlog is only about 3 days. Is this something that same day service is required for? I would think that anything turned around in less than a week should be considered sufficient. --After Midnight 0001 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the backlog tag. At most we're talking about requests a couple of days old and as After Midnight says this is non-urgent. Still, input from crats on the rename pages would be greatly appreciated. WjBscribe 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no harm in a reminder, but I remember backlogs over well over a week at certain points in the past. Warofdreams talk 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I just think it's important to keep credabiity with our processes, just about any other site would have an instant rename process, now I know we're different but it's best to keep on top on them and it will make less work for the 'crat that gets round to doing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're way off base with the 'any other site' having an instant rename process; most require a site admin to change your name in the database. Luckily Wikipedia allows you to do this in four easy clicks. It only becomes complex or takes time if people want to hold onto their old edits, which is not a trivial matter. 64.126.24.11 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm part back. I don't have proper internet access so I can lose it without notice. Other people do need to look at the changing username pages.. I'm not reliable because of my connection issues. Secretlondon 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_6&oldid=1144732399"