Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

If you wish to contact bureaucrats to alert them of a privacy issue or an emergency please use Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org.	Noticeboard (talk) Bureaucrat tasks: Assigning bot status (talk) Simple renames (talk) Usurpations (talk) Requests for adminship (talk) Inactive administrators (talk) 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
Click here to add a new section
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where tasks related to the Bureaucrat permission can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please record any actions which require review below in a new section. 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 raise the matter with them on their talkpage in the first instance. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages. Requests to hide usernames which are grossly insulting or contain personal information should be sent to the stewards OTRS queue via meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Stewards (or stewardswikimedia.org), or contact a steward privately via IRC (#wikimedia-stewardsconnect) but do not post it here. To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
USURP reqs	4
CHU reqs	5
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	7
Approved BRFAs	0

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 22:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 03:42:32 on November 24, 2015, according to the server's time and date.

Admin bit for non-admin arbitrators

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please participate at Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. There should be no further discussion here in order to keep everything in one location. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Note: now subject to RfC at: Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

With an ArbCom election looming, what would bureaucrats need before flipping the bit for successful non-admin candidates? Would they - and the WMF do for CU and OS purposes - regard an ArbCom election as an "RFA-identical process" and flip the bit without much thought? Would they regard the tools as an essential for the performance of arbitrator duties? Would they require a clear mandate (and if so from whom)? This is better addressed earlier than later as the assumption in some quarters that non-admins will never be elected because they don't hold the tools is a serious electoral disadvantage. FWIW, I'm dead against the idea of a post-election RFA for successful candidates because it gives the participants an opportunity to veto a much much broader community process (cf. Level of Consensus. Perhaps more to the point, how do we get clarity on this before the voting begins?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, as I've commented elsewhere - I believe that the Arbcom election process is a higher standard of scrutiny than a standard RfA - for one thing there are more voters, more questions and guides. I also believe that any candidate who is elected to Arbcom should receive the admin bit for at least the period they are on Arbcom - to allow them to see all available evidence, not only deleted edits - but context such as how easy or difficult it might be to make a "mistake" with the tools. I think we'd need an RfC on the matter though. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Dave. Could the EC (@Guy Macon, Mdann52, and Mike V:) comment here please as it is fairly firmly in their court too?  Roger Davies ^talk 10:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we run a quick RFC so that this can be resolved before any specific personalities get involved. The decision should be independent of who is elected. Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Arbitrators need to be admins. I thought the whole point of having non-admins on ArbCom is to offer a different perspective? Admittedly, It might mean that a non-admin Arbitrator could only participate in some ArbCom business, but isn't that the choice of the voters who support such a candidate? If admin rights are to be granted to successful non-admin ArbCom candidates (either temporarily or permanently) without an RfA, I would like to see that endorsed by the community at an RfC. I'm not happy with the decision being made by ArbCom and/or the bureaucrats alone. WJBscribe (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Historically, my understanding of WMF's view is that ENWP's arbcom is more than equivalent to going through an RfA, and thus sufficient from WMF's POV to make any non-admin who becomes an arb an admin. I suspect if it happens (and keep in mind that it still hasn't, and very well may not this year,) that arbcom would pass a motion sysopping whatever non-admin became an arb. Arbs require much higher levels of trust than admins do, both because of the information they have access to and their role. I don't know whether it's fully automatic anywhere and am a bit too tired to find the policy page offhand right now, but all arbs hold both CU and OS, correct? Both of which require far greater trust than +sysop. (Even if they aren't automatically made CU and OS, they control who in the community is made CU and OS - and it'd be pretty weird for someone who couldn't see deleted pages having a significant vote towards who becomes CU/OS. As pointed out above, someone acting as an arb would be pretty much cripple without the ability to review deleted revisions, etc, crippling their ability to view a lot of evidence involved in arb cases, and at the same time, an arb running an RfA would be pretty awkward. I guess the motion sysopping them could be limited to their term as an arb - but after a year or two of acting as a reasonable arb, would it really be reasonable to expect them to run through RfA after they step down? Particularly since even most ex-arbs are on functionaries still, unless I'm mistaken. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the main concerns is not being able to see deleted content, does granting Oversight to a non-administrator give the ability to see garden variety deleted (not just suppressed) content? If so that would mitigate a lot of the concerns. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Both CUs and OS can view deleted revisions, and Arbs can appoint themselves to this role under the "RFA-identical" provision, so I don't see what argument there is for them to be administrators. If they also need other admin privileges, such as IPBE or EFM, those can be added separately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That was my line of thinking, however I have never seen a non-administrator checkuser or oversighter to verify. As I mentioned, the main concern I have seen with a non-administrator not being as effective as an Arbitrator is the inability to see deleted content, so if being a CU or OS will grant that, and being elected is an RfA identical process, as determined by the WMF, then there is no need to grant the admin bit. Especially since a portion of non-admins will certainly get votes specifically since they are not admins. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying Arbs shouldn't be given +sysop if they don't have it already, although I'm not convinced. But I want the community to be the ones to decide this point (when given all the facts, including that CU & OS allows users to view deleted edits). FWIW, I don't think ArbCom could just require +sysop to be added to its new non-admin members by motion - the community has never authorised it to create new sysops, much as it has never authorised bureaucrats to create new sysops without RfAs. If this is seen as a "no brainer", it should be possible to get a consensus at an RfC within the next couple of weeks (i.e. before the end of the election). A few questions that might be considered are:

1. Should those elected to ArbCom who are not admins be granted +sysop automatically?
2. Should this be temporary (for the period of their term on ArbCom) or permanent?
3. Should their use of +sysop be limited to ArbCom business?

WJBscribe (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

+sysop is needed for OS to function properly (I believe), due to the permissions needed - although this may have changed! If need be, I can test this out, but the issue is it may not be the same as it is on here!! Mdann52 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So that is two completely opposite answers to the same question. I don't think we have a non-sysop oversight user. If we wanted to give it a test, it could be assigned to my sock account (or another Oversight user's test account) temporarily and I (or they) would be able to tell you for certain. I think this is an important answer to have prior to any RfC on the matter. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Mdann52 referring to a different wiki? Enwiki's OS and CU groups have been tweaked to add 'browsearchive', 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext; this can be seen by looking at Special:ListGroupRights. However there would be no better way to know for sure, because no one probably does, than for an oversighter to test each of the permissions on this wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. And thinking about it now, probably an easier way to do this would be to have, for example, my regular account (this one) desysopped temporarily to test it, rather than granting it to a sock/test account. I am good with that too. If a 'crat wants to remove my sysop flag for a few hours I can test it out today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ scratch what I said, they've changed it now :) Mdann52 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear. That should probably be mentioned somewhere on the ACE page, as it seems to be something that is not very well known. I am still around for a few hours if someone wants me to field test it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If oversighters and/or checkusers were also given (abusefilter-view-private) then they'd be able to "see" everything that a normal user couldn't. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I just confirm that non-Admins elected to ArbCom can be given OS without becoming Admins? Would there be objections to us granting them OS status? If they can and it's ok for us to do it, it certainly should be mentioned on the ACE page. I don't think the inability to block is a problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't possible for a non-admin to have OS back when I applied for it. @Risker: may remember the particulars (I'm still searching for the offical statement). Mlpearc (open channel) 19:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WMF will not allow arbcom to grant CU/OS to an editor who has not passed an Rfa-like process, but they consider arbom election such a process. See discussion. NE Ent —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• What is this strange resistance to just giving the admin bit to non-admins who get elected as arbs? It makes zero sense that we'd be comfortable with them using CU and OS, and viewing deleted content, and helping decide on who to siteban and all kinds of other restrictions, but not want them be able to protect pages and block people (the only things they still wouldn't be able to do if given CU/OS). If we don't trust someone to protect/block, then there is no way we should elect them to arbcom. Rather than try to figure out workarounds, just flip the admin bit if they get elected. Unless for some reason they don't want any particular bit, in which case do whatever they ask. In fact, wasn't there a discussion about this a year or two ago, where this is what was tentatively decided (tho it ended up not mattering)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  I haven't been involved in previous discussions, but I did make a brief comment above. To me it's a bit like supplying your elected political representative, who you would like to enact legal instruments, with handcuffs and a stun gun. If we are electing people to have that ability, that's fine, but it should be made clear. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about giving them the tools. I mean really, they can desyop but not be made Administrator? But only if it's understood that it's permanent, it would be unfair to make them then go through an RfA. I agree with Floquenbeam, if we trust them enough to elect them to the committee with the power to ban, etc, then there should be no issue about giving them Admin status. Doug Weller (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, some voters may want to have non-admins as Arbs, because they may have a different perspective, and for some maybe because they believe that the admin bit immediately enrols the receiver into a giant anti-them conspiracy. I think a reasonable compromise would be to give Arbs the admin bit, but only for the duration of their term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, they (singular) cannot desysop except among a committee of at least 2 others. –xeno^talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you're assuming elected arbs get in by having the trust of the community rather than getting in because they were slightly better than the totally unpalatable choices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Good point. Although there isn't a specific threshold for RfA, it's quite a bit higher than the 50% +1 for the committee, so I would need to think further about this. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And I think I misunderstood something as I thought someone said you can't get CU/OS without the Admin bit. That makes a difference. Doug Weller (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The good news is that neither Doug Weller nor the Bureaucrats will decide the answer to this question. The community will, at Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. If the RfC ends up giving us a clear consensus, then we three electoral commissioners will add our stamp of approval to the decision of the community and we are done. If there is no consensus, the decision will be made by the electoral commission. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly disgree .One of the electoral commissioners has posted a proposal in that particular RFC hence it would be WP:INVOLVED if the electoral commission now closed it given that this is a contentious RFC.The election commission deals solely with issues relating only to that particular election in this case the 2015 Arbitration election .This is a policy change which will affect even future elections it is beyond the scope of the Election commission and only the decision of the community will stand whether it is Consensus or No consensus as is the case with any RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Guy Macon:. The "good news" is that none of ArbCom, the Bureaucrats or the electoral commission (a body of 3 people consisting of the only 3 people who applied) will decide the answer to this question. The community will decide - in the normal way - at the RfC, without any of the aforementioned groups expanding their remits. The RfC can be closed by uninvolved users in good standing like any other. If there is no consensus for non-admins Arbs to receive +sysop, it will not happen. WJBscribe (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  You are entitled to your opinion, and indeed are free to bring it to arbcom for a ruling (although you probably should wait until there is something to rule on; all of the members of the electoral commission are trying very hard to determine the consensus of the community so that we have nothing to do -- our attitude is the exact opposite of seeking more power) but the fact remains that the mandate of the electoral commission is as follows:

"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion." Source: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission

If this does go to arbcom, I would predict that the result will be them informing you that they meant what they said when they put the words "to adjudicate any disputes during the election" into the electoral commission mandate. You are, of course, free to file an arbcom case to see if my prediction is correct.

As for the issue that you keep raising about one of the electoral commissioners voting on a RfC question (they are questions, not proposals) I am not going to publicly criticize a fellow commissioner, but if that specific RfC question ends up before us I will start a discussion about recusal. The odds are that that specific RfC question will be answered by consensus at the RfC stage and that your complaint will be moot.

As for only three people applying for the electoral commission, the three who did apply are the last people that should be blamed. You were free to apply and you were free to vote against any of us and did neither. I myself reluctantly applied when I saw only two candidates, and specified that I wanted to be an alternate if another qualified candidate applied.

As for your opinion about how consensus works on Wikipedia, I believe that you have a subtle misconception. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus tells us what to do in various situations where there is no consensus. I won't repeat the list here, but the basic principle is that if there is no consensus the status quo remains. There is no status quo regarding arbitrators who are not administrators. We cannot simply say "well, there is no consensus so we will do exactly what we did the last time a non-administrator was elected to arbcom" Someone has to decide, and that someone is the electoral commission, according to our mandate to "adjudicate any disputes during the election".

Again, I must emphasize the theoretical nature of this entire discussion. It may happen that no non-administrator gets elected. It may happen that the RfC gives us a clear consensus that we can put our stamp of approval on. It is highly probable that I will get my wish and that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate, but I cannot agree with you claim that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate even if there is no consensus.

Finally, can you please pick one venue? You are raising essentially the same points here and at the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC#General Discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: That makes sense iff you agree with the analogy of arbcom = legislature, and admin = police. This strikes me more like providing them with handcuffs, a handgun, a police car, and access to the crime database, but hesitating to give them a taser and the key to the bathroom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree... arbcom is the SCOTUS-in-bathrobes, and admins are the WP:BANHAMMER-wielding wiki-Thors.  :-)     Psychologically speaking at least, to the everyday editors, some of them anyways. Arb-candidates who are not admins already have a hugely steep hill to climb. Giving them 'free' perms in the form of an admin-bit (especially a lifetime one but in most psychological ways this also applies to giving them a "temporary" admin-bit for their arb-work during their arb-term only), would have a very definite impact on the arb election process. There is already a fairly large bloc of arbcom-electorate-types who refuse to vote support on any non-admins whatsoever. Auto-admin-ship will make life even tougher, because now additional people will oppose the non-admin-arb-candidates, because of the auto-admin-ship-freebie! In a way, your analogy is correct... the hypothetical non-admin arb, elected to sit on the committee, will be given CU and OS perms in order to perform their need-to-know arb-work-related tasks. But they won't be given the block-button, and will have to ask some admin to assist -- prolly an arb-clerk or another arb or somesuch. However, consider the desysop procedures: arbs are not granted a desysop-button, but have to ask a bureaucrat to actually implement the bit-removal, if I understand things correctly. So there is some precedence for this sort of arbs-decide and then others-mash-the-button. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the German Wikipedia had some non-admins elected arbitrators. They were given the sysop bit so they could see deleted revisions etc., but were expected not to use the bit for non-Arbcom related activities. So there is even precedent for this. (And yes, all arbs should be given +sysop). —Kusma (t·c) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I guess it's not really a WP:BIGDEAL if they're granted an admin bit, but I don't see why they would need one if they are granted OS privileges, which allow them to view deleted content. Sure, they wouldn't be able to block the people they've decided to ban, but they're not technically able to desysop people they've decided to desysop, either, unless they're also a steward or bureaucrat. And not being able to flip the desysop bit hasn't really caused any problems as far as I'm aware. I guess it depends on whether people feel there's value in having actual non-admins on ArbCom, which is more of a social question than a technical one. 28bytes (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Correct, this is not a question of needing the bit to do the work, since CU+OS is sufficient, this is a question of appearances, and social standing. One view is that, in order to have all the arbs be equals, the non-admins ought to be automagically given the admin-bit upon winning an arb-seat. But methinks the correct view is that will backfire: it will give the arb-electorate Yet Another Reason To Opppose the election of non-admins to arbcom. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think it makes any sense to give them the bit automatically. They have the ability to "see" everything that they would possibly need to by way of CheckUser and Oversight, the logic that we should give them a tool they don't need just because they were elected for an unrelated position is lost on me completely. I also don't comprehend the argument that because it's perceived by some that they'd easily pass a RfA, we shouldn't make them? Why not? If they can "easily" do it, then who is it harming to make them? The only appropriate analogy I can think of is that non-admin edit-filter managers have proven they're trusted by the community; so why not automatically give them template editor? Because they don't necessarily need it. If they can prove they need it, then the community will give it to them. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with giving them +admin for the duration of their term as an arb, for all the reasons expressed by others above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The issue of non-administrator candidates is not so simple.
  For example, there is currently a candidate who previously held administrative privileges that were removed by the committee. Would administrative rights would be re-granted, quashing the previous decision?
  I don't think we can decide any of this here, and if an RFC is to be run, it needs to be done swiftly. Personally, I would be delighted to see a non-administrator on the committee and would consider that as a reason to support their candidacy. Giving successful candidates the administrator userright by default could eliminate any perceived or actual benefit. If the candidate is conferred the userright permanently and without restriction, it could also be seen as a 'backdoor' to adminship.
  While I'm happy to enact community consensus one way or the other, we could simply provide the necessary userrights to oversight and/or checkuser and have them hold one or both of those privileges as necessary. (While I have the floor, I'd love for the view-deleted to be rolled into the bureaucrat package so I could defrock if I wanted to.). –xeno^talk 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ahem. Special:ListGroupRights provides the necessary information. Both the CheckUser user right and the Oversighter user right have sufficient attached permissions for an arbitrator to carry out a checkuser or to review suppressed revisions or revise an egregious privacy violation. They are not full-fledged admins, but may utilize the tools in the function of the office. Risker (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Curiosity query, would a non-admin arbitrator be allowed to conduct their RfA during their term ? If true it would seem that doing so would have an impact on !votes and the outcome. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be proscribed from doing so; there have been active arbitrators who ran for bureaucrat in the past, as I recall, and I don't think there's much difference in the mechanics. I wouldn't predict the impact of a sitting arbitratorship on an RFA - it could have a highly positive effect (ie, user is already trusted as an arb) or a highly negative effect (ie, community members think the arbitrator actions have not met expectations). Risker (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Risker, I can now see that it could go either way, as usual. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a German example of an arbitrator being elected administrator (OK, this is a case of somebody who had been an admin in the past). Note that the German Wikipedia has a policy that says arbitrator/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversighter are mutually exclusive. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've created an RfC to determine the community's thoughts on this issue. I would encourage everyone to direct their comments there. Mike V • Talk 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

New admin/admin how-to is now the admin guide

Alright! Wikipedia:New admin is now Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. So the old Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide (WP:ADMINGUIDE) redirects there. Everything it covered is explained in greater detail in our new admin guide. Bureaucrats, if you have a template you issue to new admins that links to the old admin guide or the "admin school", please update it to go to the new admin guide. You can also continue to link to the reading list as that is likely to stay.

This was a quite an undertaking, especially when you didn't know you can move subpages at the same time as moving the parent page... I ended up moving the main admin guide page back then moving it again and using that feature. Anyway, I think I finally got it right. There's probably more double-redirects that neeed fixing, I will try to look into fixing those. Also, I realized I probably should have gone with just Wikipedia:Admin guide, simply for brevity, but maybe someone can reassure me spelling it out to Administrators' guide was the right decision. Afterall we have our redirects such WP:ADMINGUIDE/B for blocking, etc.

There's still a lot of wrok to do. Namely, I want to get a lot of topics mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list to the admin guide, such as how to deal with discretionary sanctions, and some other miscellaneous topics. Input or contributions to this effort are greatly appreciated. The big thing I want to stress is we should try to keep the admin guide brief but informative. It is meant to give an overview of how we go about various tasks, and some the best practices and tools we can use to expedite them. If admins want the full story they can refer to the corresponding policy or guideline page.

Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Are you going to link to or list helpful tools and scripts for admins? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

They're in there. It's sort of organized by task, and where we explain how to go about the task it mentions how you can do it faster with a given script or tool. At some point I'll work on a dedicated page that lists the scripts. WP:US#Admin scripts is very lacking and I'd rather have it as a subpage within the admin guide — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Neil that having all of the scripts listed on a dedicated subpage is a good idea, so it's good that it's in your gameplan. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done! It surely is incomplete. Feel free to add whatever you feel is appropriate. The lists of tools live in subpages of each section of the admin guide as a means to refactor them and make them easier to maintain. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what stumped me was a technical issue, specifically, where to find the right templates to put on user talk pages and article talk pages. I still rely on Twinkle and I'm sure there are more nuanced notices and warnings available somewhere that do a better job communicating with editors. But I think when I went to look for them, they were all in a category and didn't have very descriptive names. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:WARN. Rgrds. --64.85.216.85 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Curious

[This] notification to User:Useight was never acted upon.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: This gets posted on here at least once every few months :D Useight has an active alt. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I thought either there was some magic protection (like this), or the account was so old that it was inadvertently grandfathered. It would appear that Useight has no intention of using their advanced rights. So the account fits into the category "unused and likely to be unused accounts with advanced rights" which en masse are an unneeded security risk, but clearly doesn't fit into the category the rule covers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

I wonder if we need an edit notice about this. This is the third or so query about Useight (his alt has participated to bureaucrat discussions, so he isn't completely inactive in bureaucrat matters).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I first brought it up earlier this year. Although I never understood why he preferred editing with his alt account than his regular account with user rights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)