Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1

Needed?
Is this needed? Renamings should be logged at Changing username and its archive. There is also an automatic log at Special:Log/renameuser. Close RfA discussions would be better at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where anyone interested can comment rather than only bureaucrats. Angela. 00:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe not, but since I've been called to account for deciding things on my own which really require consensus, I thought it might be good to create a page which parallels the Administrators' noticeboard. Surely not all Bureaucrat actions need go on this project page, but only those which the acting bureaucrat is unsure of doing: either beforehand or afterwards.


 * You will recall that I promised UninvitedCompany that I would change from being so unilateral (the old Uncle Ed ;-) and respect consensus more. Uncle Ed 17:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the existance of this page on RfA - it would have been nice to tell your fellow bureaucrats about it.. Secretlondon 00:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Shhh, it's a sceret! You are able to keep a secret, right? El_C 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that with me being under intense scrutiny since UninvitedCompany, et al., escalated the RFC to an RFArb, anything I did would be noticed immediately. What is the proper forum to make announcements to one's fellow bureaucrats? (Oh, wait, what I'm being requested to announce is the creation of that forum.) Oops. Uncle Ed 11:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

What an irony
In a short period of time we seem to have taken what seemed to have been a fairly simple and rarely disputed process and are busy layering on rules and regulations and noticeboards. So we're doing our best to create a gen-u-ine bureaucracy at the same time that we wat to get rid of the term "bureaucrat." How ironic. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see this page more efficient and more about discussions than as a manual log. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 22:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen. If Cecropia was only king... Grace Note 09:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Tweaking of the rename user function
I want to submit a few proposals to MediaZilla for the following: Comments solicited. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the user account making a requst is currently blocked, the renameuser function displays a warning message, along with the name of the blocking admin. The bureaucrat can then approve or deny the rename.
 * While renaming, the function lists out similar matches to existing usernames eg. Mango, MANGO, ManGoes. The bureaucrat can then use his discretion over the change.
 * If an account has already undergone a username change, it warns the 'crat.


 * If the account is currently blocked, it will not be possible to post a request on WP:CHU from that account, which for all practical purposes means that the request would not be fulfilled because we only carry out requests made from the relevant account -- and if someone else or an IP posts a link to a user talk page from where the request would be made, then we'd already know that we're dealing with a blocked user.  So the first one, while it would provide us with useful information for a rationale denying the request, may not be entirely practical -- I remember a proposal a while back to alter the software so that blocked users would be able to edit CHU while blocked (like they can do with their user talk pages), but to the best of my recolection, this was never implemented... However, it would be useful if we could have it tell us if the user has ever been blocked before, even if s/he is not blocked at the time of the request. The other two seem very interesting, especially the second one, since it would save us the searching on Special:Userlist, notably because of the case-sensitive problem with the tool.  Redux 01:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Gaillimh
Unless measures have been taken, Gaillimh retains access to both the new Gaillimh account and the old not-so-secret adminstrator account. Actions that could be taken to prevent this would be removing the bit from the old account or having one of the bureaucrats take control of the old account and change it's password and username, posting notice of such action. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gaillimh never retained control over two accounts with sysop access at the same time. His previous account had already been desysopped by the time this account was sysopped.  Redux 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the user rights log and would request that you be 100% absolutly, bet your life certain this is the case - and if action was taken away from the publically accessable logs, please note that. Since my revealing the username that is discernable would be wrong, and you are not at liberty to do so, there's no way for me to verify this by sending or posting a link to the rights log with the appropriate username searched for and not found. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm positive about it. Redux 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the feeling that this is going to become a perpetual issue if not addressed and put to bed immediately. (I personally have complete trust that it's been done as stated, just for the record.) Redux, would it be possible for you to forward and email about this to arbcom-l, asking someone to confirm the details and post a note here? I really don't want to see this become an issue that blows up to the point that an ArbCom case has to be filed to settle it. Essjay   ( Talk )  15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything is kosher as Redux says, but this admin identity secrecy thing is not a good precedent, especially with any admin who is going to get into controversies, whether their fault or not. It might work for one of the hundreds of admins who fly under the radar by doing nothing but grunt work in very non-controversial areas, but as a rule we should strongly discourage this in the future. The choice is simple, edit as a non-admin, or be an admin with your history available for all to see. NoSeptember  15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed the information to Raul654 earlier today, on his request (as I said I'd do when I sysopped Gaillimh &mdash; Raul is an arbitrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, etc). I'll ask him to forward that to arbcom-l. For the record though, Gaillimh's circumstances had to do with his wish to remain anonymous (or rather, to be known only by his screen name).  He expressed his wishes to maintain his real life identity separate from his Wikipedia identity, and not to detach himself from his previous actions on Wikipedia.  In fact, he told me that he would be willing to discuss his change of identity with people via private channels (email, IRC, etc), just not on a public Wikipedia page.  Redux 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was initially mistaken about the old username. I am no longer mistaken, and see the entry in the logs now. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 has confirmed that he has forwarded my e-mail to him to arbcom-l. At my request, the more active Bureaucrats will also be receiving a copy of it. Redux 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Username Nikkis
Hello! I'd like to have an account with the name Nikkis, because I'm Nikkis in the other Wikipedia-projekts, too. But there has been a NikkisS already. Can you help me? 84.131.226.126 10:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Make your request at Request an account (which is processed by administrators, rather than bureaucrats). Note that you've posted to a Talk page here; you probably meant to post to the corresponding project page. --ais523 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 84.131.226.170 11:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)