Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:26, 5 June 2008

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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

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

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

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

It is 22:08:49 on January 22, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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)

Question about single-user login

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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, which has 13 edits, all in 2006. I'll see if I can get in touch with Shalom at Polish Misplaced Pages 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)

SUL; where we stand

I have created Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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)

 Done using DEA's new template :) MBisanz 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 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 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 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 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. Durova 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? Durova 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. Durova 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? Avruch * 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. Durova 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship