Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Page Support Oppose  % End Last updated by Chris G Bot (talk) on 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Headers

I noticed that BG7 removed the other headers earlier today [here]. I thought about undoing it but decided I'll post instead and see if others disagree with me. Personally I completely disagree with the idea of not having the other request headers (CU,OS,Crat,removal) because we don't use them often. All of the respective Requests for x and Rfx pages redirect here and to come to a page without the spot to put them doesn't make sense. This is why we have {{none}} it's ok for them to be empty. Jamesofur (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it looks untidy having several empty headers sitting around not doing anything. The majority of them are also rarely used - removal is even less likely to be used under the new policy. Why not just rename the entire thing to "Requests for rights" or similar - it's more simpler too. It's easy enough to add a new header when it's needed - we've had it like this for months/years and no-one cared before. Go back to your wiki building. Goblin 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

I think renaming to request for user rights is a better idea. Rollback could be added too then. Majorly talk 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with James. I think it makes it much easier to just leave the headers alone. It will help people in finding the correct place to post their request. I wouldn't have an issue in using GB7's idea, and re-naming the page to Request for Rights just to make it more general.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@both Goblin and Majorly, I actually agree when I first saw it I was thinking that it be better to name it Request for Permissions or something like that (rights may be simpler?). I'd have no problem with that. Jamesofur (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Consolodate it all into "Wikipedia:Requests for User Rights" (including rollback) would be the best way I think. Then subpages can be /Foo (right) rather than faffing around with the seperate rights and section pages? Much more streamlined and simple :) Thoughts? Goblin 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I propose using <!--- ---> to hide unused cats. That way, they don't show up unless you edit. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they should be removed with a single header saying "No requests for rights" or something similar, but separate when there is requests. Kennedy (talk • changes). 22:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no real pressing need to change it from how it is. It looks perfectly fine, and it keeps from causing people to argue about how the page should be formated each time there is a request of two different types. No need to keep readding the headers when they are needed when having them there all the time does no harm. -DJSasso (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment a bit late, but... I agree that the headers should be left alone, because there is no need to remove them and re-add repeatedly when they can just be left alone. I am also in agreement with a few others that this page should be renamed. I think the best name would be "Wikipedia:Requests for permissions", because adminship, checkuser, oversight and bureaucrat rights are all considered permissions. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 21:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFBs

The idea was that they wouldn't be exactly the same as they always had been. You don't need a long statement, you don't need a subpage, you don't need support/oppose headers. And non-bureaucrats don't need to vote. Majorly talk 13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems the whole point of the change went over peoples heads. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Move

My full reason got truncated. Here it is:

There has been an awful lot of discussion about the name of this page in the last few years, many of which simply stagnate and they do not get resolved, simply forgotten about. Therefore, I am going to be bold and move this page to one of the frequently proposed. It can still, and probably will be, referred to, de facto, as RfA, but the title at the top of the page misses out 75% of the possible flags discussed on this page. This name is also used to great effect on other wikis; why can it not be used here? Finally, it is simpler -- "adminship" is not a word to be found in any dictionary; "permissions", however, was first recorded in 1410, appearing in a Latin text 599 years ago.

— μ 19:59, Saturday December 19 2009 (UTC)

{{RfA Statistics}}

I have created a template that (should) serve as a way to easily reach information about the candidate. As a test, I have placed it on Megan's current RfP to see if it works well, and whether people want to keep it. Anyone who finds it annoying, feel free to zap it. However, I feel that, as long as I finish it before it is transcluded onto any other RfOS/CU/RfdPs, it should work fine. — μ 14:22, Saturday January 9 2010 (UTC)

Some of the links link to enwp... The copy and paste should be fixed. At all it is a good idea. -Barras ^talk 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are they wrapped in <noinclude>? EhJJ^TALK 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bots

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback may no longer have Chris G Bot 3 (talk · contribs) auto-archiving the page. Does someone who knows Chris G well want to ask him if he'll update his bot? EhJJ^TALK 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, has the bot had its color codes updated to reflect the new percentage? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback permission

The page says that users who already have rollback privileges on, say, the English Wikipedia can automatically receive them here. I have rollback privileges on the English Wikipedia, but not under the same name. Would it still be possible for me to get rollback privileges here if I can prove my identity? Kansan (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just make an edit on your enwiki username confirming you are simple user Kansan, post the diff here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to flip the switch. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CopaceticThought&diff=341366491&oldid=294054665

Thanks! Kansan (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On my way to do it, another admin beat me to it. :) Enjoy. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's importer?

There's a section for requests for it, but no description for its entitlements/responsibilities. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It lets you use Special:Import to transwiki (move from one wiki to another) pages from other WMF projects. Lauryn^☆ 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a one-tool request, I moved it between rollback and the mop Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lauryn: Actually it allows much more than simply that. Might I suggest a review of meta:Import. It also allows suppression of redirects (even when not doing an import) amongst other things. Quite a powerful role really. It's a bit more adminis (new word, (C) Fr33kman :) ) than is rollback. fr33kman 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Requests for checkuser and oversighter require at least 25 supports in order to pass, regardless of the level of consensus present. Therefore, even if a request is sitting at 24 supports and 0 opposes, it cannot be closed as successful. However, in a small wiki such as simple, it's often difficult to find 25 supports in the period of a week. Indeed, we often find ourselves extending such requests beyond their original one-week ending date. Commons has a de facto policy of keeping requests for CU and OS open for two weeks, which seems to have eliminated the need to extend them or beg for votes. I'd like to propose we amend the standard duration for CU and OS requests to two weeks. Any objections? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see us as having two options:

1. We use one-week as standard, but add "may be extended for one week if there is at least 75% support but fewer than 25 support votes", or
2. We use two-weeks as standard, but add "may be closed after one week if there is at least 75% support and more than 25 support votes".

The advantage of wording it this way is that, if a candidate does have 25 supports after one week, they don't have to wait around for another week before getting the tool. On the other hand, we're not desperate for new CUs and OSes, so we could simply make all of these votes two-weeks long with no early close. I am in support of any of these proposals. EhJJ^TALK 11:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

CU and OS require 80% for success so the second option you list would have to be altered slightly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with the second proposal per Juliancolton. Classical Esther^♣ 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there are always 30+ users on simple, but some of them don't wish to !vote. I'd prefer EhJJ's first option. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Information - [1] There is no statement as to how long the vote would need to take. It would seem acceptable to allow 7 days as a minimum. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for nominating users

I want to nominate a user for administrator who has previously had an RfA that did not succeed. When I typed in her name, I was taken to her previous RfA. Do I create a new page with a "2" on the end of her name or something? Kansan (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Griffinofwales 2. Great example. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Kansan (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA talk pages...

There needs to be an easy way that each RFAs discussion page is linked on the transcluded RFA. Currently, the easiest discussion link is this one, but each subpage has a talk page. There needs to be an easy way to discuss the process as it applies to a particular candidate. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps it is the way it renders in the beta... but I'm going to add a RFA talk page link to the template if no objections. Jon@talk:~$ 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucratic discretion

It makes sense to hold a discussion to develop a guideline or policy to determine what a bureaucrat's discretion is and its limits. This issue has been a topic of much comment and controversy for a long time.

Discussion

• My personal take on bureaucratic discretion is that first and foremost a bureaucrat does have a thing called discretion. It then falls to what format it takes and what are its limits. I think that a crat should have the discretion to both override the general pass/fail percentage on an RFP and should have the ability to either count more stongly an argument or count less stongly an argument. I also believe that crats should be able to completely ignore some opinions. The opinions that a crat should completely ignore should be limited to a) obvious trolling, b) opinions based on race, religion, political belief, sexual orientation, gender, age (but not maturity) or disability, c) opinions that are of an attack or POV nature. This does not mean that opinions that discuss a candidate's lack of NPOV (or violation of the other five pillars) based on one of these topics are invalid, they are not, they are very valid points to raise. I think that if a valid concern is raised, and a candidate fixes that issue and a majority of people who opposed (either in whole or in part) agree it has been fixed, then the argument can probably be discounted. It'd be a case-by-case affair. With regards to discretion about the pass/fail percentage, I think a crat has leeway both directions. Therefore, a crat should be able to pass a candidate who is numerically failing and also fail a candidate who is numerically passing. It works both ways. If, after all opinions have been considered, the invalid ones (race etc.) ignored the candidate is a borderline case, then the crat should then be able to use numerical discretion. I think Barras' idea of about 10% (or so) is about right. In all cases a bureaucrat must answer for his/her decision. If needed the crat should discuss the issue with at least one other crat. I do not believe that a crat who promotes, or not, a candidate should have their decision reversed by anyone. If there is a major fiasco, then those who disagree can run a new RFP or DRFP, and/or proceed with a decratting of the crat. The innocent candidate should not be punished for a decision they did not make. That's my 2p's worth. fr33kman 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Baras actually said 5%. That 10% would require a crat chat if I read what he said correctly. A 10% leeway in the current case results in a leeway of 30% of our active editors which is clearly way to much leeway. No crat should have the ability to cancel out the opinons of 30% of active editors. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected :) fr33kman 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I thought we had decided this when we bumped up the percentages and when the fiasco with my RfB happened and then when BG had the same issue. I thought it was long decided that crats had a 5% leeway. Any more than that is pretty much cancelling out the purpose of the Rfa to get the communities imput. For example on the current situation the 10% leeway that the crat thought he could use represented 9 !votes. Our community has at best 30 active editors. This means one crats opinion could undo 33% of our active editors. That is far too much leeway for one person. One of the main reasons we bumped the percentage up was so that crats would have to use their discression less and that decisions would be more clear cut. I would also suggest that no one but the person opposing has the right to determine if an issue they see is fixed. If they think its fixed they will switch to support. Failing that a crat can't determine that a persons oppose reason is no longer an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the latest RFA, it seems not to have been decided! :) fr33kman 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Based on NVS's comments It seems like he thought passing was still 65% which is a different matter. (I don't think he thought he was using as much discression as he was). Based on reactions I have seen and heard I don't think many people thought this promotion should have happened. Most just feel bad undoing it now. (which I don't think is a valid reason to leave someone promoted) I certainly think crats should have some discression, but it definitely should be used very carefully and definitely shouldn't wipe out all the oppose votes which is pretty much what NVS said he did. Giving leeway where any editor can overrule 30% of the community is just plain bad. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I was talking to Barras on IRC and he thought it was 65% also. I don't remember the discussion to change it. How many people took part? fr33kman 19:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I am thinking a pretty large number. I seem to remember it going on forever. I will go look for the archive. -DJSasso (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • The discussion was in January. I missed it and that why even I thought it still is 65 %. -Barras ^talk 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I see 6 people discussing it, unless I'm mistaken. fr33kman 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
              • note: I actually checked the criteria (as I do every time I close or nom) so I knew it was 75%, which is why I told JC, scream, etc., that I had thought it was going to fail. But I can see why others still thought it was 65%. I'm personally fine with 75% btw. :) fr33kman 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hello there. I will also give my opinion about the subject, but please remember: This is my opinion. It is very well possible that some people do not like it. As this "society" is constructed, the bureaucrat is the most elder role we have. There are checkusers, who can see things that bureaucrats in theory cannot see, and there are oversighters who can hide content so that even bureaucrats do not see it anymore. Both roles serve a different purpose though. In an RFA/RFB ("RFP"), an (uninvolved) bureaucrat must take the decision whether to promote a candidate or not. All he has to base this opinion on is his own feelings, and what others have said about the candidate (in a process that is usually called "voting"). Some arguments will be more convincing than others. At the end, this should not be a numbers game alone, this should be about consensus. In an ideal world (which I am aware does not exist), all the bureaucrat does is set into practice what the community decided. For the last promotion, 65% were in favour, and 35% against (rounded to the nearest percent). A total of 23 people (out of perhaps 30) took part in the vote. If I take a "crat bonus" of 10%, this makes 3 votes (supposing all 23 are considered valid). This probably is not even worth discussing. My point here is a different one though: Supposedly, the crats are the most trusted editors in this community, so they should be able to find an oracle, that tells them how to decide. The problem with oracles is that they speak in riddles. "If you transgress the river Haldys, you will destroy a great empire", Koesus was told by the Oracle at Delphi. Kroesus thought this was good news, and attacked the Persians. With this he destroyed his own Lydian empire. Anyway, if you cannot truist the crat to decide, it would probably be time to get rid of the crat. :) --Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• I am content that 'crats have discretion and use it. Rather than use straight percents, I would prefer to use other tactics. One is to ask for opinions from editors who are respected, but have not spoken on a case; another is to recognize more clearly that the default position is to say no. Another would be to get tougher when we have enough admins, and loosen up if we need more. However, to come down off the fence, I would be unhappy if as much as 25% of the responses were negative. I note the obvious cases went through almost nem con. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What is nem con? Jon@talk:~$ 16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)I think it's an interesting point to consider asking experienced non-crat editors for their views if they are uninvolved. I seem to recall a situation where all crats had taken part in an election and I asked a non-crat if they would close an RFA (with my permission) as they were neutral and well-experienced. Unfortunately, they declined and an involved crat closed it. I don't get your "as much as 25% of the responses were negative" comment however, Mac. Especially in light of the "rather than use straight percentages" statement. Could you expand on that a bit please? :) fr33kman 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• en:wikt:nem._con.. If I understand Macdonald-ross correctly, he's essentially say that our admins should pass with nearly no objections (as many have in the past). I am inclined to agree with him; having 1 in 4 opposed is already considerable and passing with 66% would mean that that a full third of users don't think you're the right person for the job. Considering people tend to support more often then oppose (if split on the issue), having 1/3 of users oppose a promotion should raise questions whether now is a good time to do so, or if that user should perhaps try again in a month or two. After all, not passing an RfA is not a terrible fate. In fact, Mac may be arguing that even those with 75% shouldn't pass strictly because the have enough support, if the few oppose opinions have serious concerns about the candidate. EhJJ^TALK 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Trust your bureaucrats or recall them. Pretty straightforward. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That's frankly my feeling also. fr33kman 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this is a question of how much do we need to trust them however. Do we trust them enough to cancel out the fact a user was 9 votes away from what the community decided was passing percent as happened in the most recent Rfa (albeit accidentally this time). I don't think any person should have the ability to decide to completely throw a guideline out the window that was decided by the community, atleast not on their own. As such a descretionary range is absolutely a good idea. Recalling a 'crat is unfortunately an after the fact reaction, the damage is often already done by that point. As can be seen in the most recent case, no one wants to undo their decision because we might lose an editor, even though most people think an incorrect decision was made. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's just discuss the future please. fr33kman 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Its not possible to discuss the future without pointing to examples. Otherwise we are just talking without having anything to back up what we are saying. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• I actually like Macdonald's idea. We don't really need admins and I think admins should be trusted by a large majority of the community. If the community insists on a numbers game, I think that the 5% discretion for a 'crat and 10% for crat chat is a good idea. I haven't fully read all the arguments so feel free to correct anything I write. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Percentage

For the numbers so that we are clear... Can someone who is a bot guru (I'm not a guru) :) make for us something that will display the current percentage on the RFA talk page so that this is easy for me when I close? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Such a thing already exists Jon. It is located at the top of [2]; unless you meant something else. fr33kman 04:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) You could check User:Chris G Bot/Rfx or divide the total number of support !votes by the overall !votes to come up with a percentage. With those options in mind, I don't really think it is necessary to have a percentage on the RfX itself. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the bot compilation now... I've been doing it by hand for how long now? Jon@talk:~$ 04:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to make sure you earn your paycheck. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To which problem is this a solution? Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deadminship to De-adminship

Please change it from "Deadminship" to "De-adminship" confused me at first. Or can a template be added? Template:Wrongtitle  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd say it's not a big deal, but this is probably a good idea, especially given as how it emphasizes the prefix and looks less like "dead man ship". It's simpler. Kansan (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Can the template be added until it is fixed?  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to wait to see if a consensus exists. Kansan (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Might look simplier, but proper english would be to not use a hyphen. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Without a hyphen? When I first saw "deadminship", I searched until I figured it out. Other people may have the same problem. What about "DeAdminship?  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Still would not be a proper english word. We say deconstruct not de-construct or DeConstruct. We shouldn't confuse people learning english by using bad english. I do understand its easier to read with the hypen don't get me wrong. It's just that its not proper syntax. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Can a template be made or a note be placed to show what "Deadminship" is on the page?  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenated words are quite proper in English, as are non-hyphenated words. 'Adminship' is a strange torso of a word in any event. The issue here is simply a practical one: without the hyphen the first four letters read 'Dead', and are open to misreading. Stick a hyphen in and forget about it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In some instances. Not in this one. Either way it happens so rarely just go with it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for something other than Deadminship too. Considering its called requests for permissions and not requests for adminship I think we should keep it comparible and call it something similar to "Requests for Removal or Permissions" or similar. Hoots (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Request for Remover of Administrative Rights"  PolymathSJ ^Talk 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already in a section basically called that Current requests for removal of rights -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So why is it still caller "Deadminship"?  PolymathSJ ^Talk 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we try to make it easy to understand. If you want adminship we called it Request for Adminship. The opposite of that is Request for Deadminship. Makes it much easier to understand if the names are the similar. Not all removal of rights are deadminships. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes it easier to me.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just Curious

Is it even possible for an ip address to be given any of these rights? 74.109.217.103 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"Bureaucrat (also called a "crat") is an user who can grant the admin and bot permissions" - should be; .....is a user who can.... 80.193.248.34 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. -- Mentifisto 10:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Subpages for RfIs

I just wonder if we could get back to use subpages for requests for importrights. Otherwise, it is hard to always notice when someone asks for this flag. -Barras 11:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't catch that the last one even happened because it wasn't formatted properly. Only just happened to catch the second one because I was on close to when it was created. Personally I think we should just remove the section from the page to discourage non-regular editors from asking for it since its a tool that really shouldn't be given out to anyone who isn't very knowledgeable in the local wiki policies etc. Not sure when it got added onto the page by someone. -DJSasso (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you push to remove this came from all of a sudden. There is a page on this Wikipedia:Importers Jon@talk:~$ 00:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't all of a sudden, I've always said we shouldn't give it out. When we gave it out the first time it was considered an exception to the norm but then someone listed it on the page of request for permissions. Not sure when that happened. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm lost and need help from an administrator I suspect

I'm a new editor at regular Wikipedia. I've convinced a local high school in France to use students to learn English by writing Simple English articles. I volunteering to do this.The program begins next Monday at 2:00 Paris time and I just read that an Administrator needs to drop the limit of six in order to allow for the nine students enrolled. How do I do this and where do they register? regular Wikipedia?Mlane78212 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I've answered your question over at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Help from administrator enrolling 9 students. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice

Was going to be bold and do it, but its blacklisted. I think we should have this. Was there any reason why its not on yet? It can only help. Normandie 13:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to import EN's system (which we should because no one probably knows how else to do it), {{editnotice load}} will need to be imported and changes made to the system messages. With these kind of changes, I would rather this be discussed on ST first. By the way, the blacklist entry was introduced when stuff was copied from EN's blacklist. Chenzw  Talk  14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)