Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive/1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is this needed? Renamings should be logged at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 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:
- 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.
Comments solicited. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
