Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

WT:RFA#New user rights

For the first time since, well, never, there's strong support at RFA (so far) for giving some users a new userright. The proposal is that some users will be able to block new-ish accounts, and presumably also see deleted contribs. I've weighed in there, saying both that clerks would be ideal for this, and that what I'm expecting from a vote at UAA would so much better than what we get at RFA. Opinions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion wound around and around and came out ... not supporting any initiative, but at least not opposing the clerking initiative here. That got me thinking: the kind of Wikipedian who does well at RFA these days might be described as well-rounded, mature, communicative, and willing to do a lot of things they're not particularly interested in doing in order to conform to community expectations. Wikipedia needs these people, and Wikipedia also needs people who do a lot of patrolling of new contribs and new users, apparently motivated by the fun of competition with the other patrollers and the fun of participating in something big and important, but not interested in searching for the "big picture" or telling people what to do or conforming to RFA norms. For a while, Wikipedia found a way to "co-opt" and assimilate the patrollers: we dangled shiny barnstars and even shinier mops in front of them and talked up the advantages of being a proper adult and sitting up straight and eating your vegetables. But it just isn't working any more; the "adults" at RFA have decided that the role isn't suitable for people they identify as "not adults", and I'm not going to tell them they're wrong; the community is what it is. But even if we "fixed" RFA, it wouldn't matter, because the patrollers are largely uninterested now, as Carl's infamous table proves (from roughly 200 active admins left who joined in each of the years 2004-2007 down to 11 who joined last year ... yikes). But the patrollers are still doing the things they've always done, and many of them are very, very good at it ... in fact, many of the people who are "clerking" at UAA are better at making those judgment calls than all but just a few admins. They'll keep doing it as long as we give them the appropriate respect and don't micromanage where we have no business micromanaging. They know that it's mostly their work and their judgment that makes the noticeboards work. They're completely capable of deciding what "clerking" at UAA should mean and what tools they need and how they want to foster competition; if we let them do it, then my guess is within a few months we won't need a lot of as many admins to handle the load at UAA. This may annoy admins who enjoy the work at UAA and don't want to be upstaged (I admit it annoys me), and it may scare people who haven't been looking at UAA all day long as I have, and so don't know what many of our patrollers are capable of. (UAA is one of those annoying boards where we erase everything as soon as it's handled, in the interest of suppressing rather than advertising what the promoters and vandals are doing, so either you have to check the history or just watch it all day to know what's happening.) But at some point, you have to make the call that's in the best interest of Wikipedia. And for people who think that I'm trying to be a "populist" here ... "More power to the people! Vote for me!" ... I'm going to back off from UAA for a bit and see what happens. "If you love something, set it free." Also, I've got a bunch of articles to write and copyedit. apparently I'm having a difficult time backing off :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going to be talking about the clerking experiment for 5 minutes at the NY Wikiconference next week; I'd appreciate any subjective evaluations that anyone wants to make on how good a job non-admins have been doing at UAA lately. I think a number of them have been doing a very good job. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Feedback would be appreciated; it's hard to talk about what is or isn't happening with the UAA clerking experiment without at least subjective evaluations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on this point. Some people have been very helpful, and knowledgeable on how to do clerking stuff in UAA. I think it's a good idea to have them do this in a more organized, and more "official" fashion. I do not entirely agree, or are comfortable with, the other side of the idea, of giving non-admins some parts of the bit though. FWIW. -- Alexf(talk) 15:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Striking that bit, with a sigh. One reason is that I haven't gotten a response yet from User:MGodwin on his legal opinion about letting non-admins see the deleted contribs just for new accounts and just when they've done something blockable. I also didn't get much support for the idea at RFA or WP:Vandal fighters. As anyone who hangs around UAA knows, you can't make the call on a promotional name unless you've got a link between their username and what they're supposedly promoting, and the articles that provide the evidence you need are often deleted, so I think we're stuck with no possible userrights for UAA clerks, which means UAA will always be admin-intensive. But if clerks can and want to carve out a role for themselves, and are content with the right to stick "clerk note" in front of their comments, then great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Salvio indirectly mentioned (at WP:UAA) the subject of seeing deleted edits ... the best I can tell, it's not going to happen for non-admins. This is good in a lot of ways, but without any userrights, it may be a bit of a struggle to convince people around the wiki that clerks are worth the faith we're putting in them. Also: should we ask new page patrollers who see a possible username violation to mark the page as patrolled, report it to UAA, and then only tag it for deletion after the question's been resolved at UAA? This would lessen the dependence of patrollers and clerks on admins, which seems like a good thing. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It would make sense to let non-admins block (new)users who have gotten a level four warning or whose username has triggered one of the thousands of filters. Mr. R00t Talk 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Message in User Reported section

Why is there that template:

at the top of the User-Reported section on the page? I understand the majority of it but why the "...There might be votes at the end of September, with promotions to "clerkship" for some..."? It seems unnecessary. Mr. R00t Talk 03:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We've had an uptick in the quality and quantity of reports and discussion by non-admins since that notice went up. The lesson I take from the endless discussions at WT:RFA is: when considering something new, discussions about how it's going to save or kill the wiki bore me. If the opposition to "clerkship" was significant, we would have seen it by now, so my advice would be: if you're interested in running for clerk, go ahead and start a section here saying you're running and we'll figure it out as we go. I for one will be happy to listen to your argument for what you want to do and why you'd be competent at it, and I'll try to give you a reasonable rationale for my vote. There are a few candidates who would be outstanding no matter what "clerkship" means. To recap, we're not talking about extra userrights, that's dead, and not even about any special rights or responsibilities; we're just talking about the right to claim that you've gotten support from the community in the role and the right to stick a {{clerk note}} ( Clerk note:) in front of your posts. Many of us suspect that might do some good, but what good it does exactly, we'll just have to see, it probably depends entirely on who we get and what they do with it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the things here need the ability to block people and view deleted contribs. I realize that someone or other at MWF has shown concerns over letting non-admins view deleted contribs. I can see why the ability to block people belongs only to admins. But that leaves me with the idea that nothing is left that the clerks could do other than talk to the user (which is helpful if they aren't already blocked by the time the page finishes loading). I'm going to run right now and see what happens. Mr. R00t Talk 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, there's nothing special at clerks can do, so why do we even need clerks? Dank, I support such ideas when there are actual things like userrights or technical issues that only clerks can do (such as rollback, reviewer, SPI clerks, ACC, etc.), but when all a clerk can do is display a template that says they should be trusted? That really isn't much and only creates artificial divisions between users. To be clear, I would support it if there was something more concrete instead of just being able to use "clerk's note". Regarding the trust issue, if User A has been around long enough, made good contributions, and handled administrative issues in the past, he would be trusted. User A won't need the "clerk right", so he probably won't seek it. If User B is a new user, doesn't know what he's doing, etc., he still won't be trusted despite being an UAA clerk. Also, this will likely attract permissions gatherers... Netalarmtalk 03:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There are artificial distinctions all over the place on Wikipedia ... for instance, the coordinator elections for WP:MILHIST are going on right now ... and the general outcome is: if you get good people, they do good things and make it work. Speaking of which: we vote on coordinators for MILHIST once a year (now), allowing only support votes, and the top 15 vote-getters become the coordinators, as long as they get at least 20 votes each. Would that be a better way to do clerk elections? - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a content related project, not an administration one. Artificial distinctions generally should not exist IMO, but they're less of a problem if they're on a informal content project. UAA is an administrative noticeboard, not an informal content project. Good people get good things going, and there's no need for such artificial distinctions. Netalarmtalk 21:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for clerkship: 1234r00t

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing comments I have closed this as  Not done as it is certainly clear that the issue regarding clerkship should be resolved first before these premature nominations should be commented upon. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dank suggested I just go and start this train rolling by doing this. Basically I'd like to be a clerk at WP:UAA so that perhaps when I made comments to users after using the Being discussed with the user. template I'd actually be listened to. For some reason newcomers listen to administrators more than experienced users that lack that flag. I think that "clerk at WP:UAA" sounds more like someone that you would take advice from than "Random user who doesn't happen to have any flags that stumbled over WP:UAA and decided to help". I think I would be suited for this job/position because I enjoy helping out behind the scenes (aka not really writing huge articles) and because I am good at not biting newbies. I've never been blocked, no warnings (except when I accidentally self reverted on Igloo and got warned by myself), and am an active user who is trusted fairly widely. Mr. R00t Talk 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want some stuff to read on me 1234r00t (talk · contribs · count). Mr. R00t Talk 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion for 1234r00t

That doesn't sound right actually... I think I've made closer to 25-30. Mr. R00t Talk 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
If you count on my user contribs there are at least 17 on the first page. It may be that the tool does not take edits to WP:UAA/BOT into account. Mr. R00t Talk 23:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I count 31 clerklike activities in my contributions I'm going to check in the history as well. Mr. R00t Talk 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, WP:UAAB is a separate page that appears by "transclusion" at UAA. The tool reports you've made 14 edits to that page, all within the last 4 days. Both of these links give diffs, for people who want to look. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I need to learn how to count... :) 11 + 14 is only 25. Mr. R00t Talk 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Votes for 1234r00t

  • Oppose at this time. I think you need to come back when you have a much better understanding of the username policy. You need to understand that the bot can't see any context and it just reports things that might be offensive if used in a particular way [1], and also that we normally don't act on reports at all if the user has never edited, except in the very most offensive cases such as racial slurs or gross personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. As per Beeblebrox. I noticed the same issue. User is well intentioned and will be an asset. Just need a little seasoning. This comes with time. -- Alexf(talk) 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright. I'll take your advice, work in this area some more, and come back in a few months. Mr. R00t Talk 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clerkship: Fridae'sDoom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing comments I have closed this as  Not done as it is certainly clear that the issue regarding clerkship should be resolved first before these premature nominations should be commented upon. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've a solid understanding of username policy, I've successfully identified usernames that have violated policy in my own reports and (mostly, memory's fuzzy) those of others. I'm an easy-going person and tend not to make bold assumptions based off 1 edit that a user has made (see past UAA reports). I'm fairly active at UAA, I can't say that I'm well-versed in all policies but I am well-versed in administrative areas of Wikipedia and major policies. Questions are welcome and I will answer to the best of my ability, it should also be noted I live in Sydney, Australia so questions asked might go unanswered for 8-10 hours (I do need to sleep as well ) I promise to work in full-capacity and to the best of my ability. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 10:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for running, Fridae. Although people were roughly 95% in favor when we discussed clerkship here at WT:UAA, we only have one vote in the election above, and that's not going to be useful for the community or fair to the candidates. If people aren't willing to vote continually, perhaps they'll be willing to vote on all the candidates once every 6 months or so, as we do at WP:MILHIST. If not, then we should call off the experiment. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, perhaps a message should be sent to people that are regulars at UAA? Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 03:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with elections. This page is simply too low-traffic otherwise. sonia♫ 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well we could use MessageDeliveryBot to inform people about submitting their names for clerkship and voting or we could call an election date and use MDB to inform those last active on UAA about said elections. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 08:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sonia; and, perhaps a message to regulars here might be useful, or we risk ending up with ten candidates and three !voters... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Since the right to use a {{clerk note}} does nothing unless the admins respond to it, I think the next step is to make sure we've still got the support of admins active at UAA in addition to Beeblebrox and myself. If we do, then it should be fine to set a date. People are often uncomfortable voting because they don't want to look closely at each candidate and point out specific faults when they oppose; "approval voting" where you only vote if you're supporting fixes that problem. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I do my fair share of work around here, and quite frankly, I doubt the utility of the system. Can someone explain to me what the utility of appointing clerks is? Either we're going to block, request a trip to CHU, or shunt the report off to another process; and an admin still has to check the clerk's work. Courcelles 03:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the Blockuser permission would have been a good idea since it would have given the admins a smaller workload. Clerkship is not so much a bad idea but I agree with Courcelles since the admins will need to check over a clerk's work thus giving them more work, it seems to be more of a position of authority rather than that of any real power. I mean it's not like a clerk can block a user. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 08:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think the idea is somewhat flawed; giving "clerks" the ability to block users shouldn't be done lightly. I don't think it would be necessary for an admin to check the work of a clerk; the theory being that clerks have proven themselves competent in the process. However, "clerk" is really just a title, and we don't work on titles here on wikipedia: if an editor is active in UAA and understands policy, they can help out by discussing problematic usernames with the users, responding to reports (possibly using the UAA comment templates), removing older non-vios, etc. I've done all of these things myself. If more editors are encouraged to help in these ways, the admin workload becomes very small: an admin simply has to have a quick look over the list and block any blatant violations, and leave other editors to deal with non-vios or non-blatant vios which require discussion first. Personally I am perfectly happy to continue helping out at UAA without requiring the ability to block new users or have a "clerk" title. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Seconded in its entirety. sonia♫ 08:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And that's why I question the utility of this process- "clerkship" doesn't come with a block button. Courcelles 08:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, this is frustrating ... where did the 95% support go? To recap: we have about 800 active admins, and roughly 600 of those began their wiki-careers in 2004-2006; 9 began in 2009, and 29 began in 2008. So it's more likely that we'll lose 200 active admins and gain 9 next year than the other way around. No specific proposal for dealing with the problem at WT:RFA has gotten even majority support, so we need some kind of "social" rather than technical solution to the problem; clerkship was the only proposal that had gotten strong support. The idea was to empower the best patrollers and give them the visible support of the community for taking over some of the jobs that admins have typically done. And it was the only solution to problem I just mentioned that actually worked: there's been an uptick in the quality and quantity of reports and comments on reports by non-admins since the idea was floated. To the people who are asking why we have to do any voting now: I'm hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any reason for the current uptick in activity to continue if, after nearly unanimous support for a little egoboo and a little validation, the community yanks it back after the work's been done, without even a "thank you". I've maintained optimism for a couple of years while listening to the cries of "Wikipedians seriously suck at volunteer management" at RFA; I still don't support that, but I'm beginning to see the point. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is the proper way to combat the problem Dank has stated. We do not have enough users becoming administrators. What does that have to do with UAA? We can't add unneeded modifications to UAA just because not enough people are becoming administrators, furthermore, shouldn't the people that want to be administrators participate at UAA if they want to? These are two separate issues - RfA and UAA. If there's a problem with RfA, it should be resolved at RfA, not through an artificial user class system at UAA. If we need more administrators, it may be better to discuss it at the clerking page that Dank created. Here are some more reasons why I'm against this artificial class system: This will likely attract permissions grabbers. This will create an artificial class of users that can't do anything much. This is entirely unnecessary here. Also, if say, I'm a trusted user here, the clerk name wouldn't matter to me at all. Why would I care if I'm a clerk or not? People are going to trust what I do. Thus, most of the time only users that want more permissions or need to prove their trust will go through this system. For the rest of us, people will just trust us based on who we are and our history. Netalarmtalk 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
@Dank: Well, I've thought about it. The good thing about clerkship is that it encourages people to get involved in what is primarily an admin-only zone; the bad thing is that the kind of users who thrive on titles often aren't the kind that should be clerking. This idea has worked, in that I've actually realized- and I'm sure others have as well- that this place is open for us, that we can pitch in, but I like it this way. This sort of experimental stage where we're all just doing it rather than being "clerks", is fantastic the way it is. And that'll be a better solution, saving time on voting etc. Like at CHU- anyone can clerk, people who are being a pain (which is rare) will get asked not to clerk for the time being. Upon watching how things have gone here, I've decided that's a good system, with little formality. If more non-admin involvement in admin-related areas is an issue, well, there's plenty like me who'd never realized we could. The Signpost article about dwindling RfAs did wonders for August's count, perhaps a follow-up on "Things you don't have to be an admin to do" would draw helping hands here as well. sonia♫ 21:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree: I think it's a good idea to leave up the note encouraging other non-admins to get involved and attract more useful contributors to WP:UAA. The issue with clerkship is that I have sometimes seen users specifically seek out user rights like rollback and reviewer because they see it as a title: clerk would be the same, except that clerkship wouldn't actually give the users any tools, just a title. I contributed to WP:UAA on occasion before the clerkship idea, but since the note was added to UAA encouraging further involvement, I have increased my activity here; it seems others have done the same. Every other "title" on wikipedia is really just a set of tools: what good is clerkship if there are no tools? Encourage involvement, but don't offer a reward. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Given the above discussion a Signpost submission would be beneficial and as Sonia said it did wonders for August's RfA count, what clerking will bring is less work for admins discussion-wise. Clerks are well-versed with username policy and will be able to carry out the simple task of having a discussion with users whose name may be in violation of policy. Is notifying active UAA participants via MDB still feasible or is the Signpost notification more preferable? Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
My two cents is that the time isn't right for the Signpost, because there's a kind-of sort-of "UAA community", and as a community, we're not even close to forming consensus on where we're going with this. At this point, we'll just confuse people who don't know anything about UAA. This experiment seems touch-and-go to me, at the moment. I totally understand the point that Sonia and others are making: it's working just like it is, so leave it alone, we don't need votes. The problem is that pretty much every experiment on Wikipedia that has had good people and momentum but no structured way to keep the validation and egoboo coming has fizzled over time, usually over a short time. That's why I was willing to talk this up and put energy into it; I thought support for elections was somewhere around 95% and this experiment would have some longevity. Now I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dank, when are you going to understand that: Nobody cares about the bloody clerking. If you look at any of the 10-odd discussions you have started about this is that most people say "what's the need", and some say "meh, I guess we could try", but let's be honest, you're the only one who keeps bringing up clerking over and over again. If you look at all the discussions you've started here, on WT:RFA, on Wikipedia talk:Clerking etc, you'll notice that they just seem to peter out, with you being the only one reviving them. In fact, the clerking proposal is so unimportant that people don't even bother opposing it - that's why you thought support was 95 %. Yet you seem to be writing loads of philosophical musings on the subject and making a complicated framework out of something that amounts to a minimal change to a noticeboard that's one of the least important ones on Wikipedia anyway. If admins are so overburdened on UAA that you claim, then of course we should encourage non-admin participation, but why make a major bureaucratic system with elections, special templates and page upon page of diatribe about this system. And how you get the idea that voting about who gets to use a special template when policing usernames will somehow cause Wikipedia to have more active admins is beyond me. What Wikipedia needs is more focus on spreading knowledge and less focus on bureaucratic claptrap. Seriously, you have too much time on your hands. If you don't have anything more useful to do on Wikipedia, you should start collecting stamps or something, it will be much more rewarding. Szansztar (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks for a whole lot of nasty bullshit that completely cancelled out any real point you may have had in there somewhere. I'm not any more sure about this than anyone, including Dank, but there is no need to make it personal. Dank has put a lot of effort into this because he cares, if you don't care then feel free to ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Getting back to the actual issues, i.e. if we are going to do this at all, I understand that some of the folks who have volunteered to do this like things the way they are, but there is real harm that can be caused if there are ill-informed users that feel to respond to or even remove reports here before someone with more solid knowledge of the policies has had a chance to look at them. Having clerks is a safety net against such a situation. I don't see it as a perfect solution, and of course it very much remains to be seen if ti would result in more quality candidates for adminship, but I think in the end I do support the idea as a whole. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support. For what I've seen, I have no problem with Fridae (same goes for Salvio) on the work they've done here. I oppose adding a block bit to a non-admin as I mentioned elsewhere, but I see no problem with using a clerk notice for knowledgeable users such as these. - Alexf(talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT: Great user — very experienced and helpful! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as he seems to know what he's doing. I see this "clerkship" as almost identical to the non-admins who help over at WP:CHUS and WP:CHUU. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Per all above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Not much else to say, but especially when I am in high school for the next nine/ten months, he might be the man there. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 07:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Alexf. I'd add that I regard being in "unusual" timezones as something I regard as a positive. There are plenty of editors in UTC-10 - UTC-4 and UTC-0 - UTC-4. East Asia and Oceania often lose out as a result. TFOWR 08:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Moral support (chalk it up as a Neutral). I'm too involved with the process to vote, but I'd glad you were willing to run and that you're putting in the effort. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Though I originally marked some of Fridae's earliest reports as non-blatant vios, he appears to have learnt the policy quickly and is making himself useful in responding to others' reports, correctly imo. Though I still have my reservations about the clerkship process itself, I see no reason why Fridae would not make an effective clerk. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: This user has gained a lot of experience. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't see any reason to oppose, and this user seems to have good experience. Agree with TFOW about the timezone advantage too. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, for almost exactly the same reasons as Amatulić. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not comfortable supporting you. "...Por que todo consigue, mi vida con tus porfías..." --A Chilean cueca --Diego Grez (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. That is an inherently problematic username, the contributions are superfluous in that case. Now your comment was accurate, but it seemed to minimize the problem a little- not seeing the wood for the trees, I guess. As recent as that is, I don't really feel comfortable with you having any title that implies authority. And before you protest, yes this is indeed also based on the fact that you're asking for rights nearly every time I come across you on other wikis. I can't detach your behaviour into "enwiki" and "other projects". sonia♫ 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sonia and because you seem to insist on noting the blatantly obvious, especially on the bot reports. I'd like to see some more experience with finding and reporting inappropriate usernames and taking reporters up on bad reports rather than just trying to make yourself look useful. Sorry mate, I like you on a personal level, but I can't support this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I really don't like to pile on, here; however, I agree with Diego, Sonia and HJ. I'm sorry. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose regretfully per Sonia. I blocked that "stopzionistediting" on sight, and, quite frankly, was stunned anyone would tag it as such. It was a blatant problem, and it was the kind of problem that anyone we're considering for clerkship (if we must do this, I still oppose the entire system) should recognize as such. Courcelles 01:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Due to interactions in other areas (mostly with regards to AFC) where it has taken many, many criticisms from others to try to alleviate problematic decisions; I appreciate that FD accepted the criticism and always promised to endeavour to take it on-board, but it simply took far too many people repeating the same problems for me to have confidence in your ability to understand policies and guidelines to the necessary degree required for this role. (FWIW, I agree w/ Courcelles that the concept is flawed anyway; it seems to me like "The adminship system is broken, and we can't fix it, so let's bodge it up instead"  Chzz  ►  03:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Completely messed up

Closed as no consensus; proposal for clerkship right has failed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a discussion going on on this page where there is increasing opposition to the clerking idea, yet there are two active votes. Can we suspend the votes until we work on the fundamentals of the new system (if any)? This is like voting for a president when we don't even have a constitution. Netalarmtalk 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's simple, Clerk's have no power in the form of a block bit, but they can handle the current reports and discuss with users who may have a username that is in violation of policy. The administrators then carry out the necesary blocks. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Which essentially makes it useless. I support a system like Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Assistance... I support a system any competent user can comment on reports. Forget the stupid clerk thing; it's useless if they have no "power".  ℳono  feedback 02:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)  ℳono  feedback 01:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I second this motion. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wait, so we're proceeding with this idea even though it seems like people are still actively opposing it? Netalarm raises a very good point. Fridae's Doom, any competent admin can decide what is and what is not a violation of policy, and any user can discuss a user's username if they feel it is inappropriate. There is no clerking necessary. No one is going to say "No, you can't tell this user that their username is misleading because you're not a clerk" or whatever. If a non-admin continually makes incorrect judgments on requests, they can be asked to stay away from UAA. There's no reason anyone needs to be designated as a clerk for this. Everyone should be invited to join in. An admin is going to make the final decision to block anyway.
UAA doesn't require as much extra effort like CHU (looking up many logs, etc.), and there are many more admins than crats. Basically, I don't see any need for clerking, as anyone should feel free to help out. Making this some sort of "admin-prep" activity will only attract people who want to become admins as fast as they can. Anyone who understands the policy and wishes to work with it should feel free to, but no one who just wants to get rights should be able to apply for clerking all over the place. That attitude is inherently impatient, greedy, and shows a hastiness toward policy judgment. —fetch·comms 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
True, but what harm would there be in having clerks? Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
What harm would there be in not having clerks, then? What is clerking? If it is just commenting on different usernames, that's open to anyone and can be done by any regular editor. It doesn't have to be restricted to a clerk. In the end, it is at an admin's discretion whether to block or no the username(s) in question. Is a clerk someone who simply patrols WP:UAA for a certain length of time every day? Isn't that a job that anyone, not just a clerk, can do? So what use would there be in gaining the right to comment on a UAA report when others already do it on a regular basis? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As an example, I frequent the WP:UAA board a certain part of the day, and I'm definitely, without a doubt, not a clerk. If, however, clerks are people that block usernames, then this page should simply be changed to Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator and clerk attention. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
In response to Fridae, as I mentioned above, there is potential harm in having clerks: a clerk would simply be a title with no tools, so it's even more likely to attract users seeking "power" or "prestige" than regular userrights, which actually provide some sort of tool. It also means that non-admins who want to help at UAA in future may feel like they're stepping on toes because there are "clerks" to do that job: in some ways, it discourages users from being WP:BOLD. UAA should encourage more users to help with dealing with UAA reports, not promote the formation of an "elite" community of clerks and excluding any additional outside help. Personally I don't see any actual advantage to clerks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't say anything but echo Fetchcomms and Gigtiger; we're voting on a system we haven't decided the purpose or utility of. Is anything actually useful to be accomplished, or merely an RFA prep course? Without a block button, it feels like the latter. As an admin, running through UAA is pretty simple. I block, I clear reports if I concur with another admin that it is unactionable, or I comment. A few times I've seen non-admin "clerks" tell folks to "Wait until the user edits" when the user clearly has edited, the edits have just been deleted already. I've seen admins make the same mistake, but at least the admin just forgot to look; the non-admin had no easy way to tell. No offence to any of those who have put themselves forwards as clerks, but I think I must oppose the entire system as a useless bureaucracy. Commenting by non-admins ought to be obviously and conspicuously open to all, but this position serves no benefit to my mind. Courcelles 09:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I see your point about non-admins not being able to tell if the users have deleted contributions, but I think for that reason non-admins simply need to be more careful: before I ask the reporter to wait for the user to edit, I check the reported user's contributions, and also their talk page. If the reporter hasn't mentioned any edits they have made, they have no non-deleted contributions, and their talk page history doesn't indicate any deletion nominations (or indeed warnings for their edits), then they've either not edited, or they should have been warned if their edits were non-constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you saw the way around that, though some don't bother to go into that level of effort. I was mainly pointing out that more admin tools than simply Special:Block go into making UAA decisions. Courcelles 09:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The objections are legitimate and don't bother me, and it doesn't matter to me how this turns out ... as long as we get good data, so I want to make sure we're not misremembering what happened here. I want to be clear: everyone's opinion is valuable, even if they just started on Wikipedia, even if they have little experience with UAA, and even if they edit unregistered, as IPs (although ... and this is just a subjective, personal observation ... people usually discount IP votes when the IP appears to be experienced enough that they're probably someone's sock, rather than someone who prefers to edit unregistered). New people are sometimes exactly the people you need to inject fresh ideas. Nevertheless ... I think it's common experience that when people offer rationales who don't have any experience with the actual task at hand, people take a wait-and-see attitude. I'm only offering this opinion so you'll know what it is I was seeing in August, and I expect others saw it the same way. From August, you'll see reservations expressed by User:SGGH at WT:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_2#Clerking. SGGH is an experienced Wikipedian; I don't remember seeing them around UAA and they're currently on a wikibreak (but maybe we have just missed each other at UAA). Netalarm has of course been opposed all along. At WT:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_2#Hold on..., User:Tckma had reservations but was willing to participate and User:Avicennasis expressed opposition. Otherwise, we had 13 supports, mostly from Wikipedians very active at UAA and elsewhere. I'm not surprised that a lot of potential clerk candidates drew the same opinion from this that I did ... namely, it looked like it was going to happen ... and the uptick in the quality and quantity of work by non-admins coincides with that period. I don't know where we're going with this ... I hope we continue to see the same activity and support we've been seeing for the past month, whether clerkship happens or not. Time will tell. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't consider myself an outside to the username policy or here, but I agree with Dank that quality work should continue here, no matter what happens. I honestly don't believe we need artificial user classes to ensure quality (look at content creators, they receive nothing, yet contribute quality content). Everyone is free to help and I see no problem with that. Regarding my opposition to this idea, I think it's important to note that I supported WP:Clerking. I don't like the idea of a clerk that can do nothing because, well, they can't do anything that a regular user can't. That being said, I really cannot understand the need for clerks here. Even though there may be problems with RfA, I think we can all agree that the problem needs to be resolved at the root, not here. Netalarmtalk 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, just to be clear, I'm not saying your arguments aren't valid. What I'm trying to do is figure out why we've had a very successful uptick lately in non-admins moving into roles of figuring things out, commenting, and leaving messages, which everyone agrees is great. This hadn't happened before that I know of. A reasonable guess is that potential clerk candidates looked at the notice at UAA, and looked at this page, and saw a lot of people who they saw every day saying that clerk elections were coming, and saw just a few people who they never or almost never saw here expressing reservations, and came to the conclusion that clerk elections were coming. That's the context for contrasting who's been around a lot with who hasn't. I've never supported the idea that we should judge people from what we think their "involvement" is, because I have no idea what your involvement is, really; you might have thought about this a lot, in fact, you obviously have. Just one more thing: Wikipedians encourage everyone to jump in and give their opinions, but that creates a problem of its own: with millions of opinions on talk pages, Wikipedians are increasingly more persuaded by evidence plus opinion than just opinion. So, evidence so far: before August, not so much participation by non-admins. Since then: lots. The future: we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if there is no technical distinction to clerkdom - ie. technical ability to perform actions that normal editors cannot - I still think the role may be useful. Wikipedia is primarily a collection of thousands of people interacting textually; and en masse, people exhibit some quirky interesting trends when dealing with authority, or symbols of authority, or even implied symbols of authority. If some comments on a discussion are clearly marked as being "A clerk said this", their comments will tend to get more respect.
May I introduce an anecdote? Years ago, I worked in a job in IT, doing compliance. I could create lists of thousands of computers that did not comply with corporate IT policy. I had absolutely no authority to make the computers comply - I was just another user, not an administrator - but I could send messages that the computers' users would see. Over the years it was clear, over and over again, that subtle changes in how I sent the message would affect compliance. Send a generic message, and 100 users out of 1000 would comply. Use bold red text, and 200 would comply. Include clearer links to webpages on corporate policy, and some types of users would be more likely to comply, but not others. Put "Compliance warning" in the subject of an email, and the stats shift again. Even though I had absolutely no right to change software on those computers.
If we define a clerk as "somebody level-headed who is very familiar with policy in this area" then a "soft" way of ensuring that other users respect their words is potentially very valuable even if the technical ability to perform certain tasks is heavily restricted.
Alternatively, On appelle ça des hochets, je sais, on l'a dit déjà. Et bien, j'ai répondu que c'est avec des hochets que l'on mène les hommes.
bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
"It is with such baubles that men are led." - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Compromise? At the moment, we seem very divided, which is sometimes unavoidable but let's avoid it if we can. The main problem, as I see it, is that the community as a whole led people to believe that they'd get some form of recognition if they worked hard, let them do the work, then became ambivalent (which is your right, of course), which may mean there's no recognition at all. It can give people the impression that there is no "community", or not one that they should ever rely on. How about if we hold one election, support votes only, top 10 get community-awarded barnstars, with no {{clerk note}} or claims to be clerks? If that goes well, we might agree to do the same thing in the spring, so that people won't think this is a one-time thing and they've "missed their chance". That will at least keep the relevant questions on the table, rather than letting all this energy fizzle. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any problem with creating a new "clerk" user bit that allows certain users to view deleted contributions? That would create a legitimate distinction, but still leave the actionable tools to the admins. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. However, there is likely to be some opposition (if not here, then when the proposal gets discussed more widely). What could be done to allay the concerns of opposers? bobrayner (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The Foundation lawyer has historically been against allowing non-admins to see deleted contribs. I brought this up again not long ago at User talk:MGodwin#New user rights and didn't get a reply. Also see WP:Vandal fighters for the last large discussion; I took the same position as you're taking now, but I didn't get much support for it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. Well, if there are legal reasons then I will drop it. I'm not entirely sure why (well, why can admins see deleted contribs? they're just a defined subset of users who have been granted special permissions, as clerks would be in this context; whichever law is involved, I doubt it has a specific clause for a group called "administrators" in the way that wikipedia uses the word) but surely MGodwin knows the relevant laws better than I do. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree and also support allowing clerks to see deleted contribs. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 09:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Vandal Fighter proposal didn't work out. I'd say that seeing deleted edits is even more open to abuse than blocking. Admins have been given the ability to hide revisions with personal information before oversight, and I don't think it would be wise to let anyone who has not been given the utmost trust of the community via RfA (which isn't easy for a reason) to see such revisions. Making a clerk userright is even worse than just an "admin experience" designation; it actually makes users think that they're getting "power". An admin will likely review any decision a clerk makes anyway, so I repeat my stance that having special UAA clerks is worse than just letting any experienced user "clerk" whenever they want. —fetch·comms 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think clerks would make an essential change to what an administrator would do. Admins do the job, let them do it all. For a reason they are elected by the community. Any person running for clerk, should be nominated for adminship. --Diego Grez (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Not everyone who wants to help out at UAA needs to be (or should be) an admin, and it's unlikely anyone wanting to be a UAA clerk is going to pass an RfA on that basis. The point here is to take some of the workload away from admins and pass the parts where the admin bit are not essential onto regular users who have a good understanding of the username policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Diego is your oppose based on me requesting user rights on other wikis where I haven't had any experience. I'm an experienced enough user and I know what I'm doing I don't just go around requesting permissions and standing for elections such as these just to gather dust on my mantelpiece. I request these because I actually care about the work I do and because I want to help contribute with the behind-the-scenes and sometimes under-appreciated work that goes into making sure Wikipedia gets better. That is what we are all here for.
  • Cross-wiki experiences are not a valid reason to oppose, my contributions here have been solid enough and I've improved since I regained activity. I respect your work but frankly your vote if it is based on your cross-wiki experience with me is slightly biased. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 09:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Did I mention cross-wiki or experiences on my comment? I just don't like that non-admins will have the right to block. Wanna block? Run for adminship. If you can't gain it, you just don't block. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Uh, Fridae, "cross-wiki experiences are not a valid reason to oppose"... Yes, they are, regardless whether Diego did oppose you for that reason. If you were a cross-wiki vandal, you'd be right to expect a pile of opposes because of that. If you were going around asking for every right you could possibly find on a number of other wikis, then it is legitimate that I would begin to doubt the purity of your intention to help with the "behind-the-scenes" work as you put it. Rights are recognition in a way of what people have done, what they can be trusted with. Asking for rollback twice within your first three edits is just silly– regardless how solid your contributions are here, you are the same person behind the same unified account. And if this person has questionable judgement elsewhere, then I can't trust them to get clerkship here (which I gather is basically an acknowledgement of good judgement in its current form). It is not in any way a biased reason to oppose as you seem to imply, although it is certainly not as compelling an oppose as issues here would be. sonia♫ 00:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)People don't need permissions to contribute. No user needs rollback, reviewer, etc. to contribute to the project. If a user has a legitimate need for them, it would be reasonable to give the user the right. But if the user is just running around every project, applying for every permission he comes across, then I think we need to review his intentions. They may be done in good faith, but that's quite odd, right? Why would a user need to apply for permissions everywhere and never use it? Netalarmtalk 03:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Any and every user is encouraged to help out at UAA. We should not exclude helpful people because they haven't bothered to sign on as "clerks". (For the unhelpful people, they need a talking-to.) Admins will inevitably review all clerk decisions made anyway, so there's no need for a special designation. A clerk would basically give their opinion, and the admin would either agree (most of the time), or disagree and "overrule" the clerk decision, just like at SPI, where a CU can decline to do a check endorsed by clerks if it is an incorrect or unnecessary use of the rights. But unlike SPI, UAA is a less sensitive area, and the threshold for clerking would be significantly lower, so it makes more sense just to let any "experienced" user help out. There's no need for a clerk to see deleted edits; that's even more sensitive than blocking and not necessary as the patrolling admin will look in them anyway. About 95% of the time, they would be receiving deletion notices on their user talk page, so the likelihood of deleted contributions that need to be viewed by a "clerk" for UAA is very, very low. Some of the reported usernames have no edits at all. —fetch·comms 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed; as I mentioned before, the solution to not being able to see deleted contributions is to be careful to look for user talk warnings / comments before advising the reporter to "wait until the user edits". As someone else pointed out above, I appreciate that not everyone does that or has thought of that, but IMO non-admins helping at UAA should just be advised to do so to avoid confusion; certainly no need to look at deleted contributions just to see whether or not a user has edited or not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm just making it clear Diego, don't take it personally. We had already established a block user right would not be implemented with Clerkship. Seeing deleted contributions would be better over at AIV, users can run for clerkship there and analyse a user's deleted contribs if any and make a note as to whether or not they get blocked (assuming good faith and not biting newcomers is key in making such decisions, however). What do you guys think? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


  • I have to say that I oppose this "clerk" thing. It seems unnecessary and, when it gains wider publicity, it'll just attract all the hatseekers. I like the idea of non-admins "clerking" UAA, but you don't need a title to do that. I think the idea has encouraged more non-admin participation here, though, as more people have realised they can be useful even without a banhammer. We should encourage non-admins to patrol the user creation log and CAT:UAA and report bad usernames. I also appreciate non-admin comments on some of the more borderline reports. That's what we should be encouraging, not hatseeking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with you for the most part. I support the idea of appointing trusted users clerks as a way to make sure an inexperienced editor doesn't tamper with UAA reports or, worse, doesn't scare a newcomer away, and not to prevent people from commenting on reports... However, I concur that hatseekers might jump at the opportunity to accumulate a new right/flag/title/whatever... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 01:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • With the current amount of opposition, it seems to me {{clerk note}}s aren't a good idea, is that right? But the arguments so far don't seem to me to exclude handing out barnstars as a group. It doesn't make someone a freak or a hat-collector just because they want people to acknowledge that they're doing a good job every once in a while! - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • {{clerknote}} is fine, but I support a more WP:CHU way of going about it, only because of the hatseeker problem. Barnstars- do you mean that people would go through an election to get barnstars? sonia♫ 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, everyone would participate in deciding, so I guess that's a kind of election. It might also work for a lot of individuals to hand them out, but that seems less efficient, and less reliable ... it's helpful to know what others think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think barnstars would work, just as barnstars are given out for "counter-vandalism" work. However, I don't think we should have a limit on how many barnstars are given out. If an user is clearly contributing significantly, shouldn't he receive a barnstar, regardless of how many others have already received it? The point of a barnstar would be a a thank you token, which doesn't imply any authority. We're just thanking them for their valued contributions, which I believe is enough. How should these be given out? Maybe through a discussion here, but I think that's too much effort for something as simple as a barnstar - we have more productive things to so. How about letting anyone that's a UAA regular giving the barnstar to users that contribute? It's no big deal, so let's that it stay that way. Netalarmtalk 03:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I respect the criticisms I have received and will take them to heart, I tagged reports with the obvious because I was afraid I'd make a stuff-up like I did at AfC (multiple times), I now look after the Copy-vio submissions and often do the others and am going to remain doing so until I'm confident I'm experienced enough for handling other submissions.
  • With respects to clerkship I believe a deleted contribs user right would be more practical and useful over at WP:AIV, UAA has little-to-no need for seeing deleted contribs. Again as I said on other wikis and over here, I am not requesting permissions to gather dust on my mantelpiece, I request these permissions because I am confident in my abilities and experience, I was not at the time familiar with the policies of other wikis.
  • I'm now going to make it clear that if you believe I'm just another teenager who wants the attention of every cool-person in the schoolyard, you are entitled to think that way for were I in your position it would certainly seem to be the case. My protestations have all been to dismiss the fact that what I'm doing is to gather dust on my mantelpiece rather than actually do good work on-wiki.
  • With this issue hopefully sorted I'd now like to say that I thank everyone who actually took the time to vote and give their criticisms and provide a long and constructive discussion in pertinence to the feasibility of clerkship, unfortunately MessageDeliveryBot malfunctioned and did not send the message to all active participants.
  • Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 05:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding barnstars: this doesn't really seem to solve the "hat seeking" problem. Community-awarded barnstars gives the wrong message: "if I do enough at UAA maybe I'll get a barnstar"; it should be "if I do enough at UAA, it'll benefit the project". Naturally anyone who thinks that a user deserves a barnstar for their efforts can give them one, but it shouldn't be something that can be expected from working at UAA. Remember that wikipedians are meant to be indifferent to praise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, the note encouraging non-admin contribution to UAA seems to have worked well, and though there are some requests for clerkship above, I'm fairly confident that the best new contributors to UAA aren't contributing because they want the "clerk" title: I certainly hope they're not going to stop helping out at UAA if the clerkship idea doesn't end up being carried through. What we really need is non-admin volunteers, not users promised with a title or a barnstar in return. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should remove the "non-admins are encouraged to help out" part. Of course non-admins as still welcome, but there's no need to specifically point it out. Other noticeboards don't specifically state that, and experienced users should know that there are no restrictions to non-admins commenting here. Regarding the barnstars, I don't really think that barnstars would be viewed as a "hat" by most users. It's more of an award for their efforts, not something to go around showing people. Thoughts? Netalarmtalk 03:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
no Disagree on both points. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Just noting that the WMF General Counsel, Mike Godwin, has made it very clear that non-admins will not have access to deleted contributions. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Nor should they; access to deleted contributions is restricted only to admins for a very good reason as explained on that poll. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TFD of a username block template

Resolved
 – Discussion closed as keep GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

One of our blocking templates, Template:Uw-causeblock has been nominated for deletion. Discussion that led to it's creation is here, deletion discussion is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_3&oldid=1077603356"