Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Username Changes

I was just wondering how oftern bureaucrat's patrol WP:CHU. I need a username change, which is requested. SimpsonsFan08 talk Sign Here Please and get Award 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to the recent influx of requests because of SUL being implemented, relatively frequently. However, most of the time renames are not done for a few days, and it can be a week or so during quiet periods. Don't fret, you will be renamed eventually! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:54, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
(ec) They get around to it about once a day. If you look at the vast number of {{notdone}} and {{done}} responses, most are within a small time frame. It all depends on the busy-ness of each bureaucrat in real life. Rudget (Help?) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It does mention in the WP:CHU instructions "Please be patient. It may take a few days for your request to be completed." - however, WP:CHU is frequented daily. Just be patient :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL Usurp process

If a user want's to usurp for SUL, technically the safest option is to verify that they have confirmed the account making the usurp request is indeed the person that deserves the account, ie. by making edits on both accounts confirming the identity. But we don't really do that from what I have seen, so do we really need to ask people to create an account here to make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations if they don't already have one? Or should we go the other way and make everyone that is making SUL requests confirm their accounts and create them if need be? - Taxman Talk 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need people to make accounts just to get usurpations. You can do that as an anon, like I did in my talk page for a ja.wp usurpation. Moreover, requiring users to create accounts here creates more work for everyone due to Bug 13507: stewards have to delete the global account, bureaucrats have to rename two users instead of one, and users requesting the rename are given the runaround.
Not only that, if users have to follow a complex series of instructions, there will be cases in which they will run into difficulty because they're not familiar with the English language, which creates more work for translators. The instructions for usurpation here are rather complex, and then essentially mandating the addition of the burden of Steward requests/SUL requests doesn't seem like a good idea in my opinion, as we're talking about users who have a non-negligible chance of not speaking English. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it:
  1. Creating an account. No this isn't necessary - the usurpation system does rather assume people have existing edits they want transfered, or that it a third party could recreate the target account if it was just moved out of the way (which isn't possible if a global account exists). On the other hand it doesn't cause much harm if they do - if they have no edits and have already unified, I just don't perform the second part of the rename. They will be able to log in with their global name and the extra account (along the lines of user:Foo de or User:Foo SUL causes no problems.
  2. Confirmation links. I haven't been asking for crosslinks, though I know these are required by bureaucrats on other projects. My logic is that we have had no abuse so far and that if there was it could be simply fixed - we'd just rename the account again at the request of the owner who showed up later.
A request from an IP could be processed quite straightforwardly - confirm the existence of a global account, then rename the current user out of the way. Only the owner of the global account can recreate the account. WjBscribe 09:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yeah I had read that after I posted, that account names are "protected" for you if you have a global account. That does mean we can just direct people to make a request for usurping as an ip or whatever. To your point though, we should adjust the instructions so that it explains this and no longer assumes people have prior edits. - Taxman Talk 13:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Though I thought it would be unnecessary at first, on reflection I think it might be wise to create a separate page for SUL requests with its own set of instructions, as clear and straightforward as possible. — Dan | talk 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SUL; where we stand

I have created Wikipedia:Changing username/SUL to handle all SUL-related requests, including traditional renames, usurpations, and 'partial usurpations'. I have marked it as temporary, though I am not sure whether the developers still plan to implement some sort of automated resolution of name conflicts. In the mean-time, we are equipped to deal with these kinds of requests:

  • Traditional renames, when someone has an en.wiki account in a name other than his global name, and wishes to rename it to match his global name, where the target is not already taken. This will probably include plenty of non-Latin target usernames. These are no problem, except when complicated the bugs mentioned below.
  • Usurpations, cases where the target name is already taken. These are a bit more complicated. In cases where the target name would traditionally qualify for usurpation (no edits, or no GFDL-significant edits, etc.), these can be granted immediately, with no waiting period. In cases where the target name has some, or many, valid edits, it will be necessary (A) to establish that the person asking to take over the account actually has the right to that global account; and (B) to contact the present owner of the en.wiki account, let him know what's going on, and ask him what new name he'd like. These should probably not be carried out immediately, since it will take some time to get in touch with the present owner of the account. However, unlike with traditional usurpations, the owner of the target account does not have the right simply to refuse to be usurped: the rightful owner of the global account always takes precedence. SUL usurpations come in two varieties:
    • Full usurpations, when someone has an en.wiki account in a name other than his global name, wishes to claim his global name on en.wiki, but finds that it is already taken. We can handle these in the usual way, except when they are complicated by the bugs mentioned below.
    • 'Partial usurpations', when someone does not yet have an en.wiki account, but finds his global username taken on en.wiki, and wishes to claim it. He doesn't need to create an account in order to do this: he can place a request without logging in. We should be able to re-name the en.wiki account out of the way, and then the owner of the global account should alone be able to create a new en.wiki account in its place. I haven't tried to do one of these yet, so I'm not altogether sure that it works that way. I call these 'partial' because they require us to re-name only one account, not two.

Unfortunately there are two significant bugs in the process at the moment:

  • 13507, which prevents renaming an account to a name for which a global account already exists. This means that for the moment the global account must be deleted in order to fulfill most requests of the first two kinds mentioned above (traditional renames and full usurpations). Feel free to direct users for whom this is the case to m:Steward_requests/SUL requests, or simply to me.
  • 14330, which in turn prevents the deletion of a global account if its owner has already created accounts on wikis he had never visited before SUL: so-called 'guest accounts'. The deletion of a global account that has 'guest accounts' results in those accounts' becoming inaccessible, even if the global account is later re-created, which requires a lot of clean-up. This second bug is really the crippling one at the moment. Until this one is resolved, a lot of requests will have to be put on hold.

These seem to be our most pressing considerations at the moment. Please let me know if I've missed anything. — Dan | talk 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about the 'partical usurpation' procedure. I think this it open to gaming and it would probably be a good idea for the bureaucrats to require a diff from the user who wishes to taken a registered account from their home wiki proving they are who they say they are. I just think it's too open to abuse if you don't require that. They're just my thoughts anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's actually the least open to gaming. Once an account has been unified, only the global account holder can create an account with that name. So yes, the person asking may not be the person entitled to the global name, but that doesn't mean they can take the name - it's reserved by the software for the correct person. If I'm missing something, do point it out but I'm not seeing where abuse would happen. WjBscribe 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The bureaucrats have not been requesting confirmation links thus far, primarily (I assume) because of the extra, added workload it would add to editors filing a usurpation request: already not the most straightforward processes to get one's head around.
Whilst I can see the logic in having editors cross-confirm their usurpation requests, the current lack of exploitation of the process (that is, there have not yet been any malicious requests insofar as I am aware), coupled with: 1/ the relative lack of difficulty with which a vandal request can be "reverted"; 2/ the added work it would require for a bureaucrat (having to check each cross-diff before executing the request); 3/ the added work it burdens on the filing editor; makes me hesitant at throwing my support at having cross-diff's made compulsory. Anthøny 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking more of people who haven't actually created their global account yet, but want to claim their en.wiki name before they do. Anyone could claim they are someone else, have the account usurped, create the new account and then globalise the account, making it difficult for the real user to claim the account, or at least creating more work for stewards. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"Partial usurpations" should only be done where the global account has already been created - if that isn't clear it needs to be. Also, bear in mind that to be able to unify a global account, you have to control the username on the "home wiki" (i.e. that with the account with the most edits or highest access level). If someone has just created an account, it is highly unlikely to be the "home wiki" one for the global account. WjBscribe 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Will is correct, and I will advice the crats to use this tool when searching for the user across wikimedia, yesterday I asked the creator to add Blocks to the tools so that it will be easier for the crats to know if that person is blocked on another wiki or not, probably for vandalism etc, for example WJBscribe and since it has time/date of creation as well, it will be easier to determine the homewiki. I added this tool to the Interwiki map but since it hasn't been updated for nearly 4 months, it cannot be easily accessible yet..--Cometstyles 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about removal of comments...

Thought this may be of general interest, and enlightining if a vrat might comment there. I've addressed questioned the removal of comments on the DHMO 5 RFA here. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about single-user login

Resolved.
I copy this from User talk:EVula. He hasn't responded, so I'll ask the current bureaucrats.

Dear EVula (as if you have nothing else to worry about...):

I'm considering signing up for single-user login, but my situation is a little complicated. I seek advice from someone who has done it before and understands how it works, and whom I trust. That's you. :)

The username "Shalom" is shared by three or four users across Wikimedia, myself included. I have more edits than the others, but I am not the oldest, and I don't want to ask other people to rename their accounts for me. That leaves two choices: (1) Forget it, who needs SUL anyway? It's a cool feature, but I survived this long without it. The main reason I'd like to have it is so that interwiki links could be attributed to me without my having to bother registering an account everywhere like you did. (2) Rename my username to something other than "Shalom."

That presents a couple of problems. First, I remember when Warlordjohncarter was renamed to User:John Carter it shut down the server for a few minutes because he had about 70,000 edits. I have about 22,000 edits plus another couple of thousand deleted edits, so I imagine renaming my account, and doing page-moves on my dozens of subpages, would cause a major headache for the servers and the bureucrat. Second, I have different accounts with different names all over the place. On Hebrew Wikisource I am still YechielMan (my old username here); on Hebrew Wikipedia I am שלום יחיאל; on Wikimedia Commons I am Shalom Yechiel; and on meta I am Shalom Hello. I'd need help from a steward who could go to all these wikis and do a pile of renames, if that's even possible. Asking local bureaucrats to do renames is more trouble than it's worth. (I could just abandon those accounts and let my SUL global account supersede them.)

Finally, I would have to choose whether to continue using a pseudonym - probably Shalom Yechiel - or to go with my real name, which is Yechiel Robinson. As I get more involved here, I like the idea of using my real name, and I have no reason to fear harmful consequences given the fact that my name and photo is already on my userpage for many months. But I'm not sure, and here too, friendly advice would be helpful.

I know this sounds really arcane, but I hope to stay here for awhile longer, and SUL could help me do it more effectively. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this later tonight. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was blowing you off. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, to try and work through the points you raise:
  1. Who has the best claim to Shalom globally. Looking at the list of accounts with this name [1], it confirms that you have the best claim to this name globally (the "home wiki" is enwiki). Where users with this name have made edits, you may be able to usurp the accounts (depending on the policies at their wikis) or can try and negotiate with them for the name.
  2. Ignoring SUL. You cannot avoid SUL for ever, eventually global accounts are going to be the way Wikimedia Projects work. At some point it would seem the developers will need to move all non unified accounts out of the way of global accounts. Probably better to get sorted sooner rather than later.
  3. Server load. The developers have changed the way renames are handled by the servers, meaning that it should be possible to rename users with far more edits than John without causing any lag or database locks. So this isn't an issue.
  4. Local renames. The stewards are not permitted to rename users on projects that have bureaucrats, you will need to make local requests.
Hope that helps you decide what to do. WjBscribe 04:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, WJB. I'll think about it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I checked the SUL page to which you linked. Shalom at Polish Wikipedia, who is the same person as Shalom at Commons, began editing in 2005 before I did, and is an active editor there today. All the other Shalom usernames are mine except for the one at Hebrew Wikipedia, which has 13 edits, all in 2006. I'll see if I can get in touch with Shalom at Polish Wikipedia and Commons. Either I'll claim the Shalom account globally or I'll offer it to him and take a different name. One way or the other, we can resolve this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
So, to finally respond (and I completely forgot about it; early on in my RfB, a lot of stuff was falling to the wayside), I'd recommend a name change, based solely on the fact that usernames based on real words are inevitably going to confuse someone; "WjBscribe" and "EVula" are fairly unique, and you're unlikely to run into another person with those names (I'm the owner of evula.com, .net, .org...). And I'm sure I would have given a good breakdown like WjBscribe did above were I not an absent-minded professor at times. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been renamed from Shalom to Shalom Yechiel, and will take that account globally as soon as other wikis do their renames. Thanks for the advice. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Username vandalism

I just looked up an administrators name in the Users list and got a rather sad result. There seems to be some people creating sentences beginning with the username of someone they don't like (as you might guess, not particularly nice sentences). My first instinct was to report them to usernames for administrator attention, and they got blocked very quickly. The problem is they are still visible when you look up the username in the userlist. Not always being an optimist I checked another administrators username, and sure enough, it was even uglier. This is really sad I think, and I don't know what to do about it. It occurred to me that admins can't change usernames so reporting them to UAA seems pointless. That's why I bring it up here (and I think it's unnecessary to bring it to everyones attention, i.e. put it 'on display'). If you want an example you can search for Jimbo Wales. I don't know how many bureaucrats there are, or if this can be dealt with (i.e. removed) by someone else? Should I report such names somewhere else?
—Apis (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In cases where private information is concerned (ie. "Daniel's address is 123 Fake Street"), I believe the developers have deleted the relevant logs from places. However, in mere attack situations (like the ones you describe above), they naturally don't wish to fiddle with logs as they do with personal information.
Bureaucrats may be willing to rename these people to "Attack Username 0001" etc., but that's about all that could happen. No idea if any of/all the bureaucrats would agree, though. Daniel (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not general practice to rename these accounts - doing so just moves the offensive comment from the user list to the rename log after all. It has been done a few times where use of a particular account to make an edit is in itself problematic - e.g. an article about an IRA member created by an account called "Semtex set Ireland free" where the article was not a candidate for deletion. If privacy is the concern, it is probably better to ask the developers to remove the entry (as this will create no permanent public log entry) though I would be willing to rename it if someone wants. I will also consider renaming if a user is particularly distressed by such a name - everyone is a volunteer here and I see no reason not to accommodate requests where their enjoyment of contributing is significantly affected by something like this. WjBscribe 06:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not much better for those names to show up in the rename log, but at least there would be less probability of seeing it by chance when looking up a users name? It appears as most of those accounts have been created for the single purpose of showing up as an attack in the userlist when you search for a certain user. On the other hand, there doesn't appear to be that many bureaucrats/oversighters around so perhaps it's not worth the effort to rename all of them. =( I hope the targeted users don't care about such nonsense, but it's sad to see that kind of stuff lying around.
—Apis (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Emailuser

I was playing around today and figured out that 3 bureaucrats do not have Emailuser enabled: Cprompt (talk · contribs), Infrogmation (talk · contribs), and TUF-KAT (talk · contribs). Given that crats deal with delicate situations, such as RTV renames, canvassing reports at RFAs, and the like, I think all crats should be asked to have Emailuser enabled. MBisanz talk 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You may of course ask these users to enable their emails (I personally think all admins should have this option enabled) but I would point out that Cprompt has never performed any bureaucrat actions and barely edits, TUF-KAT has not performed any since March 2004 and Infrogmation since March 2007 (with the previous action before that being in August 2004) so I'm not sure their bureaucrat status is particularly significant. WjBscribe 06:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Done using DEA's new template :) MBisanz talk 06:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've got Emailuser enabled. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We should consider having a crat-listserve. Kingturtle (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider looking in, I think that would be a good idea for discussing sensitive renames, implementations of policy, etc. You all do know you have a private crat-only IRC chat room at #wikipedia-en-crats ? MBisanz talk 15:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
All important bureaucrat dialog should take place within the confines of en.wikipedia-proper. The use of a listserve would be to circulate announcements or issues quickly, alerting bureaucrats of burning issues, and pointing bureaucrats to discussions. I am not on IRC all that much, but I check my email all the time. Kingturtle (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea there was a crat IRC channel. I just tried it and I don't have access (nor do I have the ability to check who does have access). This bothers me as I've publicly stated there is no crat IRC channel in the past (there certainly is none in use). I really don't think an IRC channel is a good idea - bureaucrat actions need transparency and as much as possible should happen onwiki. One of the best things about bureaucrat discussions about RfA /RfB outcomes to my eyes are that they happen in public and our arguments are open to scrutiny. I think I will ask James Forrester to close that channel - I worry that it's very existence is a source of drama.

I personally would also rather not have an email list for similar reasons of transparency. Whilst there are occasions when it would be useful to notify all bureaucrats in one go, it isn't essential. There are few pages that require crat attention and they can be easily watchlisted. Where crat involvement in a specific discussion is needed, I don't think it that much of a problem to send talkpage notifications to every crat. Whilst sensitive matters can arise - usually renames - these don't usually require discussion, just a crat to be contacted discretely. All in all, I'd rather forgo the possible advantages of an IRC channel/ email list in favour of maintaining transparent discourse. WjBscribe 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all bureaucrat dialogs should be transparent. The suggestion of a listserve was to create a way to summon bureaucrats. But certainly that can be done with talk pages. Kingturtle (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a 'crat-only IRC channel. Aside from the need for transparency like you said, there's already an admin-only channel; all bureaucrats are also administrators, and there aren't enough of us to warrant a separate channel (last night was the first time I'd heard about it as well). An email list I'd be more or less okay with, since I trust us to not treat it like a cabal (though I'm just a day into being a bureaucrat, so perhaps I haven't been properly inducted), and I wouldn't imagine that it would be particularly active (for the reasons that WjBscribe listed as reasons not to have one in the first place). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm personally in agreement with WJB's suggestion to close the bureaucrats' IRC channel, primarily because of the fundamental necessity to maximise bureaucrat transparency: short of a few possible exceptions (eg., renames for privacy purposes), there is no requirement for a closed-access forum for discussion for the bureaucrats, as there are no 'crat tasks requiring any degree of privacy.
On the topic of bureaucrats having email enabled, I would expect it as a matter of course, and I think that all the active bureaucrats would have it enabled anyway; the three crats who do not have it enabled are, as Will points out, not active to any degree with 'crat tasks, so it's not a huge deal; perhaps a note on their talk page (not sure if that's been done, I think that's what MBisanz was pointing towards) would ping them into enabling it, but it's not something we need fret about; if an active crat de-enabled email, then I'd say we should probably treat that with a little bit more urgency. Anthøny 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, #wikipedia-en-crats is not in use. I tried to join it and was immediately thrown out. I was not able to view its access list, but I had never heard of it until a few days ago, so I suspect it was created and set as invite-only to prevent its being used. — Dan | talk 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll note I discovered it in jest last night when chatting on IRC about how few crats we have. Was rather surprised it kicked me instead of ending up in an unregistered channel. MBisanz talk 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like nobody actually uses it, but I'd still like to see it shut down (or maybe park a bot in there to ensure that nobody takes it over). I can easily see someone trying to fan the IRC flames (an admittedly easy task) by ranting and raving about a top-secret 'crat channel. No good can come from it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Like Anthony says, there's no need for it. What location does it exist at? Rudget (Help?) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Its at #wikipedia-en-crats on the freenode network, so it can definitely be taken over by our GCs and shut down. MBisanz talk 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The channel is available, but has been flagged as a private registration, available data is:
 =ChanServ= Information on #wikipedia-en-crats:
 =ChanServ= Registered : Aug 14 21:01:15 2007 (42 weeks, 0 days, 03:55:55 ago)
 =ChanServ= Mode lock  : +nst
 =ChanServ= Flags      : PRIVATE
 =ChanServ= *** End of Info ***
— xaosflux Talk 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I was able to jump in there last night; looks like it's been successfully blanked out. There were just a couple of people there, none 'crats (just admins that were there for the same reason I was: to see what there was to see). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a more active bureaucrat role in high profile RFAs

Having discussed a recently withdrawn RFA with several editors on both sides of the fence, there's been one point of agreement: a more proactive bureaucrat involvement in keeping the proceeding orderly would have been better all around. Without pointing any fingers or rehashing the particulars, the community didn't have its best moment there. Something isn't right when a discussion about whether to entrust a dedicated contributor with additional ops ends with the prospect of losing people from the project. For want of a better word, the discussion needed clerking--or at least closer management. Respectfully requesting a closer eye and a swifter response when future discussions begin to go off track. DurovaCharge! 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a fairly strong hand to spats that have risen up around Kurt's opposes, but that was as an admin. It's a little outside the "permissions-based abilities" line drawn around bureaucrat 'powers', and I would rather that the community police itself (otherwise the bureaucrats become too much of an authority group, which in my estimation they shouldn't be).
Still, I'd be fine giving a little nudge here and there when things are getting out of line; a gentle hand at the onset of an "episode" (for lack of a better term) could potentially nip a lot of things in the bud, meaning it wouldn't be quite as draconian as I'm fearing it could be. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Bad cases make bad law. It is not at all unusual for a failed RfA to result in the loss of an editor, so in that respect the recent high-profile RfA was no different from many others. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that an argument for the current status quo or an argument to implement changes? DurovaCharge! 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a comment that, although I firmly believe that the RfA needs to be changed, this particular proposal does not address any of the problems that I perceive it to have, and appears instead to be a knee-jerk reaction to a rather unusual event. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Elonka's second RFA last summer had similar characteristics, and I contemplated starting a thread along the lines of this one back then. Since that time there have been others. As a percentage of RFAs where the nominee has 15,000+ edits this is a nontrivial dynamic. This instance is more extreme than most, but by no means unique. DurovaCharge! 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who's been around long enough to make 15,000+ (manual) edits has obviously been around long enough to make a few enemies who may be inclined to view the RfA as an opportunity for a bit of revenge. I really can't see how the involvement of even a whole squadron of bureaucrats, assuming a squadron could indeed be mustered, would be likely to change that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really necessary. I realize the dhmo RfA was a bit nuts, but I don't see necessarily how deeper crat involvement could have prevented that or limited the damage. They were involved to the extent necessary in determining the extent of canvassing and taking steps, and involved in the decision to indent votes from seeming SPAs. What else, specifically, could they have done in that case or in any other difficult prior RfA that might have limited the bloodshed? AvruchT * ER 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the profanity sooner would have helped. That festered for about 30 hours and led to an ANI thread plus a minor edit war. DurovaCharge! 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what we would be able to do. I'm inclined to say that we should not do anything 'as bureaucrats': we are not the referees or directors of RFA, but only a few people whom the community thinks are good at figuring out what it wants. We were not chosen to be in charge: only to pick through the bickering after it is all done.
It might be objected that some of the bureaucrats could referee an argument effectively because they enjoy a certain amount of respect from the community. I am not sure that this translates to the ability to speak in such a way that people will listen, but even if it does, there are lots of respected users other than bureaucrats, and plenty of people who are just as adept (or much more: remember that we were not chosen for this purpose at all) at refereeing arguments in progress. This means that if a bureaucrat were to take on such a task he would not be doing so 'as a bureaucrat', but merely as a user. — Dan | talk 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds right to me, but don't forget that our effectiveness "as users" might get a little bonus, and a little more respect, due to our related roles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and could help diffuse unpleasant situations (though should not be taken lightly). In the case of DHMO, however, I don't really see anything we could have done, or any way having a bureaucrat's added prestige would have helped. Andre (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There were two main types of problems in that RFA. One was an unacceptably bad faith accusation followed by a rude word in response; which side of the Giggy-fence you come down on probably determines which one you think was worse, but I think most people realize in hindsight that both should not have been allowed to "fester", as Durova says, for so long. That generated the most heat, and a gigantic ANI thread, but I don't think it was the worst thing about the discussion.
The second, and worse type of problem was the continuous, small, incremental, almost impreceptible escalation of every single response to another's response:
I oppose."
Why?
Because the other side pesters the opposers, that's why
Oh, come on, that's not a reason to oppose the nominee
Because I don't trust their maturity
That's not assuming good faith
Don't tell me about assuming good faith, you never do
Oh God, here comes your traditional whine-fest
If you're going to badger me like this, I strongly oppose.
Dramaqueen
Git
Fuckwit
Where should an uninvolved person (admin, crat, or everyman) step in? Which one of those edits first crossed the line? You can't step in as some kind of policeman at the very first sign of preceived minor incivility; it's schoolmarmish, it looks and feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. And I guarantee that the first person to be asked to back off would reply "what about what they said right before me? How is that different?"
This is insidious, and occurs at almost every RFA. When an RFA is as contentious as this one, it reaches a critical mass. But in a less-contentious RFA like Tanthalus's last night, it happens too, and I watched it escalate and did nothing because it's always so incremental; it's always hard to say "OK, that's it, that's the straw that broke the camel's back, I'm moving everyone's comments to the talk page whether they like it or not". Thankfully, Tanthalus himself stepped in on that one, and it certainly wasn't as spectacular as what happened at DHMO's, but it was the same basic thing. Constant, unnecessary escalation by both parties, both sort of itching for a fight, but so incremental that, like the frog in boiling water, you don't know when to jump.
The solution, IMHO, (besides everyone chilling a little) is to jump in early and try to quietly (on their user talk page, not publically directly below their comment) dampen escalation made by people you agree with. That makes it so much easier to back down, when a friend is suggesting you do it, rather than an "enemy", or a "bureaucrat" telling you to. No power-tripping "knock it off or I'll block you", but "dude, things will go better in the long run for our case if you strike that last bit, whether you think it's true or not." No cries of "zOMG involved admin!" or "playing the AGF/CIVIL card", or "tinpot dictators with shiny badges". And best of all, no new policy. Just recommitting to trying to get your side of the argument across with class. It won't solve all of the problems that occured, but it will solve some of them. Maybe. --barneca (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above that this isn't what bcrats are here for and there also isn't always anything that can be done. Where it can be, Barneca has made an excellent point, it's best if editors police themselves. - Taxman Talk 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally see it as additional evidence of a good candidate when they suppress the desire to reply to every oppose on the nom page and even better evidence of a goody when they stop others from doing the same thing. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to expect specifically the bureaucrats to be the caretakers of RfA/Bs when the onus should be on all editors: crats, admins and non-admins. We are a community. We should all take a leadership role in RfA/B proceedings.

Moreover, it may sometimes be in the community's interest for bureaucrats to stay out of the fray to avoid any possible interpretations of taking sides during a contentious post-closing decision process. Bureaucrats specific role in RfA/Bs is to interpret whether the result is a success. I followed Dihydrogen Monoxide's 3rd RfA closely, but I intentionally stayed out. Participation, even with the best intentions, might have compromised my neutrality or made some editors think I had taken sides. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kingturtle here, if we are expecting the 'crats to close the debates with neutrality, how could we possibly expect them to police the debates beforehand? Way too easy to cause further disruption based on the perception of interference (note, I don't personally believe it would be interference, just the perception of it). I also strongly agree with Malleus' point above. Lots of things about DHMO's latest RFA were awful. On both sides. Using a bad example to make new rules leads to bad rules. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Because we have a high proportion of editors who tend to react to disagreement emotionally rather than rationally, this problem is not very solvable. We could try to encourage people who are friends or enemies of the candidate to not participate, but what are the chances anyone would listen? People want to participate more when they have strong feelings on the candidate. Maybe the best we can do is encourage a culture where editors do not go out of their way to becomes friends or enemies of other editors, but I doubt this would be effective. Friday (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your diagnosis is clear, but I think it misses the mark slightly. It is a private theory of mine that, while there may appear to be rational discourse, there is no rational assent: I mean that the rational defense of a conclusion can only be a mask for the irrational, or emotional, way by which the arguer came to believe in the conclusion. My theory is supported here by the fact that the ability of any human being to 'get on in life' depends on a series of logical errors, of matters of faith if you like: the existence of cause and effect; the existence of other minds aside from our own (there are no true solipsists); the possibility of free will -- we can give no purely rational justification for any of these.
For this reason I think we cannot blame Wikipedians for reacting emotionally rather than rationally. They (and you, and I) cannot really do otherwise: they can only pretend. What they lack, or at least are not exercising, is not the capacity for cold reason but something like the emotional capacity for empathy, or for imagination: the ability to imagine yourself as the other party in the argument. It is never enough show rationally that the other guy is wrong. You must then explain, to yourself or to everyone, how it is possible that he came to believe in his own argument. In order to do that you must imagine yourself as him, and see how the world feels from his position. If you cannot understand this then you are liable to conclude that he is a moron (for only a moron could believe something so entirely implausible!) and there is where you are tempted into incivility. The antidote to disasters at RFA is not reason but imagination.
Perhaps you do not believe my theory -- then the rest will do nothing for you. It's worth a shot, anyway. — Dan | talk 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think the Rfa process worked very well in the DHMO case. Better, in fact, than many other Rfas. I supported the Rfa, and will probably support another one if he comes back, but it was the Rfa process that brought out the reality that DHMO was not yet admin material. We all saw how he handled himself in a difficult situation (very well) and what he thought was appropriate behavior during an rfa (totally inappropriate). Adminship is not a reward for wikiwork but is the process of selecting users who will intervene minimally in the project and will do so in a way that has the support of most editors. With an early bureaucrat intervention, the Rfa would probably have been successful, possibly to the detriment of the project.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If that were all it did I would not have started this thread. Instead it led to a lengthy noticeboard thread, profane insults, and his apparent departure. This isn't analogous to the new editor who runs RFA prematurely and leaves in a huff when it fails: DHMO is a bureaucrat on another WMF project. When everyone is responsible, no one is. Two other examples where a high profile RFA went south:
  • Elonka's second RFA: a single editor with a very strong personal dislike toward the nominee tried to derail the proceeding. He was later blocked for a month for continued problems of the same nature, but no one intervened at RFA.
  • Kelly Martin's most recent RFA: after it went down in flames some editors proposed a story about it at the Wikipedia Signpost tipline. Although I probably would have opposed if I had seen it in time to vote, this was such bad sportsmanship that I stood up for her at that venue. We really shouldn't be rubbing people's noses in their mistakes publicly when the community decides a longstanding editor isn't right for the tools.
  • Now DHMO, an RFA which devolved into accusations of white supremecy and canvassing--mostly tangential to the nominee. Fortunately, the parties most directly involved appear to have stepped back from the brink.
This is not a good pattern. It doesn't happen often, but it's significant as a proportion of senior/prolific editors who run RFA. If the 'crats don't want to do this then maybe RFA needs clerks. The problem when "everyone" is responsible for keeping things orderly is that most of the people who read an RFA are its nominee, nominators, and voters--exactly the people who would be accused of partisanship if intervention becomes necessary. A neutral broker, respected by all, would be ideal. DurovaCharge! 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of us has said we do not want to do this job. We seem to have agreed, to the contrary, that regardless whether any of us individually wants to do it, we as a group shouldn't. This is quite different. In fact, I would be glad to attempt the task of refereeing once in a while, but I would insist at all times that I was not acting in my office as a bureaucrat. I also oppose the creation of any new office for refereeing. For this position to have any meaning at all it would have to be given some authority (e.g. 'I am authorized to block you if you do not quit using profanity'). This would give individual users the sort of authority that at present only belongs to the arbitration committee: the authority to make binding judgments about users' conduct. In short, if the position were to be any use at all, it would have to be tyrannical (or, to use a nicer word, unilateral).
You might say: let's simply not give referees any definite authority. In that case, why have a designated position at all? I would prefer that if you, or anyone else, see an RFA headed for disaster you ask a user you believe would be effective (trusted, disinterested, etc.) to step in informally and try to get a handle on the discourse without taking a position in it. This depends on actual trust and talent, not on institutionally decreed authority, and so will always be more effective. (Contingency remark: If ever such an office is created it should by all means not be called "clerk" -- that would be entirely misleading.) — Dan | talk 02:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Dan's insightful comment on imagination three posts above : Escalation often starts with expressed lack of assuming good faith which is a policy, and assuming high intelligence which doesn't seem to be a policy. A portion of WP:CIVIL complaints are located there, and have nothing to do with civility per se. To assume good faith takes deliberation (sometimes we are forced to hide our gut feelings and true thoughts), but it also takes imagination! (Sometimes it's not that hard to assume good faith, once you take a step out of your world, and imagine yourself in someone else's shoes). I would love to see this included in the WP:AGF page. Of course trolls abuse our good-faith policy, but the nastiness Durova is referring to is not trollery, it happens between editors who all strive to build and improve an encyclopedia. This is forgotten so often. Disinterested bureaucrats are more than welcome to throw in a little koan or thoughtful statement like Dan's above. I think barneca makes a very good point too; intervention by people who agree with a hothead's position but disagree with his methods will be far less antagonizing and generally more successful. If embarassment is an issue, use e-mail; it's a good enough reason for off-wiki correspondence. Talking might be more helpful than public threats and sanctions. Assume good faith and high intelligence when you see disruption too. Most editors are willing to listen, if you hit the right tone and don't make them look like a fool. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be dangerous to expand the role of a bureaucrat based on this incident. For one thing, the idea of a disinterested bureaucrat is an oxymoron. A bureaucrat has in intrinsic interest in an Rfa, especially a contentious one, and brings his or her own biases and interpretations of policies to the table. Giving a formal role to bureaucrats will only cause more problems because many editors will, rightly or wrongly, feel that the process is no longer fair. Far better to live with the risk of the occasional departure of a valuable editor than to live with a breakdown in faith in the fairness of the process. With bureaucrats, as with administrators, less is always more. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

BAG Nom close

Could I get a 'crat to pop over by Wikipedia_talk:BAG#BAG_request:_Chris_G, and close it please? It's a few weeks past it's expiration date. SQLQuery me! 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there wasn't an expiration date and we've been waiting for more participation to make the consensus clearer. It appears that's not going to happen, so I closed it. - Taxman Talk 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a bureaucrat bot

Before anyone gets too excited, I'm not thinking of one to close RfAs but one to handle some of the SUL renames. The bot would do the following:

Rename all accounts on enwiki that have no edits and the same name as a global account

Effectively this will mean doing what bureaucrats are doing at the moment, just faster and without the requests (which are a bit of nightmare given the language barriers etc.). If the account is attached to a global account - i.e. actually belongs to the owner of a unified account - the bot will not be able to rename it. If it is not attached to a global account, then moving it out of the way will remove the conflict for the holder of the global account and allow them to sign in here with their global username. Human bureaucrats will only be needed where someone has already been editing under a different account name and wants to keep those contribs.

Although the bot will need to have crat rights, the task is pretty simple and requires no thought. What do people think? Have I missed any potential problems here. WjBscribe 17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What will happen to the bot when SUL requests die down to the point that they are rare or almost no longer existent? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Will you submit it to an RfB (similar to RedirectCleanupBot)? Are there any other examples (here, on meta, commons perhaps) of a bot with 'crat user rights? AvruchT * ER 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, is renam<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>ing one of the divisible user rights that stewards can now assign individually (and not as a group, as they are assigned with a flag like +bureaucrat or +admin)? AvruchT * ER 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Avruch, I think you'll find that if it isn't, the user rights are very unpackable and that it would only take a short request on bugzilla to have the devs create a new user class for this function. Whether such is necessary is another matter, probably that should be determined by the community at an appropriate venue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OMG A CRAT BOT!1!! To Avruch: not that I know of, and yes they can. This seems like a very sensible idea. Al Tally talk 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone written this code? From a spec standpoint it doesn't seem bad - people might freak at the privBot aspect though -- Tawker (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds sensible at a glance. I assume this would be explicitly no edits whatsoever? Or tinkered to say only no edits or user talk page edits made to the same username possibly? And would there be a time limit - e.g. if the account was created <1 week ago (or whatever) then the bot won't rename?Pedro :  Chat  17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If the account has no edits and conflicts with a global account, does it matter that it was created only a week previously? WjBscribe 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No probably not on reflection. As noted this wouldn't take long, and the odds of someone creating an account with the same name as one being usurped for SUL at the same time would be negligible, so a timelimit is academic. Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c * 3) Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the devs to allow Special:MergeAccount to remove the conflicting never-been-used accounts when establishing global accounts. (I could have sworn that doing so was actually part of the design at one point.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a bit of hack. If the devs could do that, the bot would be redundant. WjBscribe 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I created bugzilla:14416 to suggest this. Dragons flight (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've left a note on Tim Starling's talkpage pointing him to this discussion so hopefully he can give us an indication of how likely it is that this will be implemented at the software level. WjBscribe 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
One advantage of a software hack is that it won't clog a brief period in the rename log. I'm not sure how many users we're talking about, or whether anyone even trawls that log manually...--chaser - t 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is unprecedented. However it is the most obvious idea in the world: how convenient to resolve hundreds of potential SUL requests, before they even happen. It has one task to do, which would take one afternoon; it would be stripped of its rights once that was done. If it needed to be put into service again, we would talk about it again. I am entirely in favor (unless someone can convince the developers to help out). — Dan | talk 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's quite a one afternoon job - that supposes that all global accounts have already been unified. I suspect accounts will continue to be unified in a manner that creates conflicts for some time, so the bot would have a slightly longer life than that - though with much less to do after the initial run. WjBscribe 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you're right, of course. In any case, it would have a single limited task, and would be given temporary rather than permanent rights. — Dan | talk 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since its technically possible to carve the rename right out, and assign that to the account specifically, I think that would be preferable to actually giving the 'crat flag to the bot. Not that it would ultimately make much of a difference, but it would definitely help with community acceptance and that sort of thing. AvruchT * ER 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the main decision here is the type of access we want to give this automaton; a simple request would be all that's needed at bugzilla to get the bot a special "renamer" class, but whether that is necessary is another matter. It may serve to solve the qualms of some potential worriers at that idea of a cratbot, as Avruch notes. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
We should actually educate those people that their worries are unfounded, not go out of our way to accommodate them (and hassling people at bugzilla with a special case is out of the way compared to a couple of clicks at Special:UserRights). Doing so just perpetuates the myths surrounding bots with privileges. – Steel 22:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a great idea in theory, but I believe we've tried before. There is always a substantial group of people not too cofortable with a bot with higher access. But we haven't really seen much of that here, so we'll see. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This seems to beg the question, that if a bot can have +renamer, why not all admins? — xaosflux Talk 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That's true, why not all admins? Andre (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a strange way of thinking. The bot is not taking over the management of WP:CHU or anything like that. It's just doing a single mechanical task that a recent change to the software has necessitated. This is not a spectrum, like: {bot, user, admin, bureaucrat}. Every bot needs a human operator, who will in this case be a bureaucrat -- so this bot is effectively a tool used by a bureaucrat, and not a user class of its own. Renames sometimes require tricky decision-making -- so bureaucrats handle them. The present case is exceptional: a bunch of renames need done that require no decision-making. Once those are taken care of, there will no longer be any need for a user-renaming bot. There is no reason for concluding on the basis of this bot proposal that all admins should be able to rename users. — Dan | talk 02:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Xaos is saying that an alternative solution to dealing with burden of having too many rename requests who be to allow a larger group of people deal with renames (such as all admins). That an entirely different approach (and arguably indepedent) to the issue. That 'crats handle renames is in many ways an historical accident. Long, long ago, 'crats were created to handle a function that had previously been delegated to developers (i.e. account flagging). When it became time for developers to pass off another function (i.e. renaming), this was "naturally" assigned to bureaucrats as well. As far as I know there has never really been a discussion of whether it needs to be a bureaucrat right, per se, or whether the larger admin community could be trusted with it. Dragons flight (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's more along where I was going...we could still have a policy requiring a 'crat to determine consensus for non-trivial renames (the tricky decision making), but make this tool available to any admin who wants to do the job. If we really want more controls crats could grant and revoke a +renamer using the same type of discretion admins currently do with +rbk or +ibe. Any admin abusing it could easily have it removed. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a very reasonable idea, and I'd be in favor of it being a separate user right like +rollback, +checkuser, +oversight, +accountcreator, etc. It doesn't have to be part of the basic admin package. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If we were swamped with username change requests, this solution would seem reasonable enough. However, even in the past week of increased load, we've kept more or less perfectly up to date. The bot is proposed only to avoid an inconvenience. No need for a solution to a non-problem, especially when it involves complicating the user rights system. — Dan | talk 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether giving admins the rename capability could really be considered a direct alternative to this bot; part of the advantage of using an automaton in this situation is the speed and efficiency that a script can offer in this case. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the idea is to save human time - I don't think using up admin time instead of bureaucrat time is as good an option as just getting a bot to do it. That said, Tim Starling's view is that this is better implemented at the software level than with a bot so lets see what the outcome of bug 14416 is. WjBscribe 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm here way late in the discussion, I know, but, here's some stats: There are 392 accounts presently that meet these criteria. (See: User:SQL/SULToMove) for a list of them. Thanks, to Cobi for writing the query :) SQLQuery me! 11:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, set that list up with some "rename" links and we can fly through it in a day. Andre (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there a preferred template? SQLQuery me! 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Also, some of those have deleted contribs, if that matters, so, even fewer really. SQLQuery me! 11:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Worked around that. SQLQuery me! 11:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • We should probably make a new template, similar to the CHU template. Andre (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I've created a template: switch them to {{SUL}} please instead of {{user}}. There are fewer than I was expecting so we can just do them by hand. WjBscribe 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
              • So we did about 500 renames. Andre (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Well, those renames having been done, we don't need a crat bot anymore ;) ... WjBscribe 13:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Would still be nice to see the software feature implemented though, as it would keep it from recurring here and address the same issue across all the other wikis. Dragons flight (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)