Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Can someone purge this name from the record? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Requests to hide abusive usernames should be sent to the Wikipedia:Oversight team / special:EmailUser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll make a note of that, Xeno. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Xeno and Drmies: From an Oversight perspective, it's also sometimes better just to send it to the stewards' mailing list for global lock and suppression since all usernames are global now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Callanecc: Please feel free to update the advice in the Front matter if that is now the case. –xeno^talk 11:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I should clarify that that was personal opinion as an Oversighter. I'll have a chat with the team and see what they think. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whaddayaknow--I never saw that sentence (in the front matter) until now. No wonder I get such mediocre evaluations. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just resurrecting this from the archive to say that I've made the change (to the front matter). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello all. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reports bot please grant the bot flag to Reports bot. Thanks, Harej (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive and noticed that it's been over a year (in one case, 3 years) without any edits by Thunderboltz, Useight, Tijuana Brass and Friday and yet they still have admin status and, in Useight's case, bureaucrat status even though it's been 2 years, 8 months since they were active. Did the bot just miss them? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

All but Useight have deleted pages within the last 12 months so that is why they have not been desysopped yet. Not sure why for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

As for Useight his alternate account User:Useight's Public Sock made an edit in December 2014 so I expect that is the reason for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess those actions don't show up as "edits" in their contribution history? I guess their names should be removed from that list. Although, I've seen admins marked as "active" who have 7 edits over the past 3 years...that hardly seems active. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, deletions do not show up as edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

May I make a suggestion here? The community has decided that inactive admins may have the tools removed without prejudice in cases of inactivity. The cases mentioned above are certainly within the spirit of such inactivity, if not the letter. Maybe these cases could be referred to WP:ANI for discussion by the community. Any such approval by the community could then be acted on by a beaurocrat. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

But surely an admin who does one or two deletes is a more active admin (doing admin tasks) than one who does one or two normal edits. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's less about who is more active than who, and more the other reasons listed for desysopping after periods of inactivity, like not being up to date with current policies. I've forgotten who it was now, but I saw an admin recently who seemed to come back every two years to make an admin action or two before going inactive again. That's definitely what I'd define as inactive, and I think there should be some scope within the procedural desysopping for those administrators who do the bare minimum in order to simply retain the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you think the bare minimum is insufficient then perhaps a proposal to add the words "or less than a 100 edits on all Wikimedia projects in the last three years" might get consensus. The advantage of an additional three year test extended to all Wikimedia Projects is that someone active on other projects is less likely to be a lost and now suborned account, and whilst they may not have kept track of changes here, they will still be familiar with mediawiki and changes like V/E. ϢereSpielChequers 05:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any scope creep in the inactivity policy definitely needs to be done via RFC, or its going to cause no end of drama. Monty₈₄₅ 13:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Monty845 is correct; if there is to be any change in the current desysopping framework, that should be done via well-advertized formal RFC.

Useight's Public Sock hasn't edited for some months and Useight did not certify ownership of his account on request of another bureaucrat here so without a fresh edit confirming ownership and fulfilling inactivity requirements we should probably withdraw the rights (with thanks to Useight for his service). (Of course, if ownership is confirmed, the edit from the alternate account counts as bureaucratic activity and meets inactivity requirements.) –xeno^talk 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I received an e-mail from Xeno, at my main account, to which I replied, but I just noticed that I got an auto-reply. I kind of feel like a character in the Dr. Suess book Horton Hears A Who - "We are here, we are here, we are here!"

I am not at my home computer, like I am often not, and I apologize to WJBScribe for completely forgetting about his request from a long time ago. It occurs to me that having a laptop would have solved this problem, but I intentionally don't have one, in order to ensure I pay attention in class.

I will log into my main account later.

Also, it looks like Thunderboltz has just about gone a year without an edit or logged action, too. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lol, forgive the auto-reply, the inmates run the asylum apparently. A fresh edit would be nice but that is enough to verify ownership imo. –xeno^talk 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would support an RfC with this provision. It seems ridiculous that admin candidates are put through such a grueling RfA process when there are admins who just return once a year to make one or two edits in order to retain the tools. When you see the thoughtfulness of some admins, who come here to BN to officially resign or temporarily be desysopped, it makes the other situation look ludicrous. No one needs the tools if they are going to make less than 5 edits in a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Useight's Public Sock, I mention Thunderboltz in my original message that started this thread. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the time to put something coherent together right now, but if someone else picked a suitable number of edits/actions per year that would still imply that an admin is 'inactive' (less than 10 or 20 perhaps?) and start an RfC I would likely support it. Sam Walton (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would give a few options and let people choose from them in the RFC, rather than having a RFC that is all or nothing. --Rschen7754 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was thinking that to be active, an admin had to have 20-25 edits/actions per year but I like WereSpielChequers's suggestion of 100 edits over three years across all Wikimedia projects. I'm just tired of running into active admins with less than 5 edits over a few years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a post on the Idea Lab regarding a suitable length and whether to include other projects would be a good idea prior to an RfC? Sam Walton (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Imagine my excitement at being summoned here by somebody I don't know wanting to de-sysop me for no reason other than I have a life away from Wikipedia. I've never really understood the fixation some people have on this. Even though this has been marked as resolved - for now - since my name was brought up, I'll answer: It's true, after three kids, marriage, a demanding job and time consuming volunteer activities, I don't have the contribution time I had when I was a single 20-something. But I still edit on a monthly basis, albeit on an anonymous basis. Often it's because I'm somewhere where I don't trust my login credentials are secure (i.e. work). Other times it's because I don't want to throw the "weight" of an admin into a discussion. And occasionally it's because I'm lazy. But I'm still here.

Do I log in and make the minimum required edits to keep my status? Yep. Because I may well be back one day. Has anyone ever offered up a legit challenge that I'd be unfit to continue to perform admin duties, as opposed to when I was given the status almost ten years ago? Nope. So why is this brought up? I've watched the question raise its head a few times over the past years, and it's always people going after a non-issue. If a specific individual is causing some sort of problem after a hiatus, take away their tools. Otherwise, be grateful that you have somebody who's been found, by a group of their editing peers, to be competent enough to help keep the encyclopedia running and may be back some day.

Finally... just an FYI... you're more than welcome to debate raising the bar to some other arbitrary number. But if that happens, I'll just log in for that many edits, and then go back to editing anonymously, save for the rare occasion when I need the mop. Come on, guys. You're all long time editors, familiar with what really needs getting done around here. Spend your time on that, instead of obsessing over people who have to take a break for their personal lives and aren't causing any actual problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 30#Should we transition the rename process to m:SRUC?

Users are now able to request renames via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. meta:Global renamers have access to meta:Special:GlobalRenameQueue to fulfill these requests.

Once Keegan (WMF) confirms it's ready for regular business, should we start directing users to this interface for straightforward renames, moving to reduce volume to the WP:CHU (and then WP:USURP; once global usurpation policy is decided)?

Benefits are a much simpler process for both the enduser & processor and increased volunteer coverage - both likely resulting in faster response time, while users blocked for usernames can request renaming while blocked.

As before, tradeoffs to consider are the further loss of local control over target usernames, that the local process page would no longer serve as a check-and-balance with respect to local username enforcement.

With this process there is less user engagement also; we should probably maintain the old venues for some time to cover edge cases. From what I understand, users receive reasons for declined requests via email, though I'm not sure what happens if no email (Keegan?). In the current change username process, there is some back-and-forth (for example if a username violations policy in some way), with this new system I'm not sure how well that would work (especially given it's off-project) so this is why I am somewhat hesitant. –xeno^talk 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why not if the process is ready, however I share xeno's concerns about loss of local control over target usernames. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• FWIW, the exact text of the rejection e-mail is:
  

The request to rename "[uname]" to "[target uname]" could not be completed.

For more information, please visit this help page: m:Help:Unified login#Frequently asked questions. To discuss your rename request, you can post on this page: m:Talk:Steward requests/Username changes. You must still log in to your current account name first.

So it does direct users to the proper venue on Meta for further discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I thought it conveyed a reason back to the user. And if the user has no email? –xeno^talk 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have to provide an e-mail with the rename request itself. If you look at SRUC's talk page, plenty of users are complaining about being declined without apparent or explained reason. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Related to this topic, how should WP:ACC requests for names that where renamed/moved by SULF be resolved? Should they be sent to checkuser to see if the account that got the global user that got the username is actually active? Should they be sent to Special:GlobalRenameRequest? I just came across my first one of these today where a name being requested was "available" according to enwp but the previous user at that name was moved to ...~enwiki so it wasn't really available. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Xeno: ACC and OTRS is scrambling to figure out how to handle these at their respective departments, is there any documentation ? maybe on Meta explaining what this process is/about. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any name taken on any project should no longer be considered "available" locally; all usernames must be unique globally. If a user wants to petition to take over the name and it exists on a project other than enwiki they will need to petition at m:SRUC (if only enwiki account exists, they can go to WP:USURP still). If I misunderstood the question, please clarify. –xeno^talk 22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, that helps. thanks, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Support and I'd also suggest we seriously review WP:RTV too. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Support Other Wikimedia projects will direct to this space, so now anyone can get a new name for English Wikipedia on any Wikimedia project. Review over usernames on English Wikipedia can still occur, as users could still be blocked for having an inappropriate userrname here. Now the difference is that the review has to happen after names are granted, and not preliminary to the execution of the rename.

I hardly think this can be opposed. Practically all channels will point to this process for renaming accounts so it is inevitable that English Wikipedia must point there eventually. It would be best to adapt to this by changing local guidelines to accommodate this new system.

So far as I know, there has never been opposition to having SUL anyway, so I think everyone who had an opinion on the matter was anticipating that this would happen anyway. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply