Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34

Inactive admins for January 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 12:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, hi there. I did get the bot message about this, but the email notification was junked. Has this gone through? A le_Jrb talk  13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * do you mean it went into your junk folder? –xenotalk 13:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've removed the administrator rights from the other 5 admins. User:Ale_jrb, let us know if you want your admin user-right removed, otherwise it will remain for another year now :) WormTT(talk) 13:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xeno, yes I did - I have email notifications turned on for my talkpage, but the message from the bot went to my spam folder so I missed it. Worm, thanks. A le_Jrb talk  16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey! – Don't forget to update Inactive administrators too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The topicons need to be changed as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, feel free to perform these updates; said edits are not strictly a bureaucratic job and can be made by anyone. Acalamari 18:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I went ahead and removed the Admin topicons and userboxes (where applicable), and updated Inactive administrators. (Sidenote: Man, there sure are a lot of Admins who will be desysopped for inactivity in February 2016!!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (And you're right about next month...eek! I nominated one of them, too.) Acalamari 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Request a return to the masses
After a great deal of thought, I am requesting the removal of my tools. Yes - I do have "non admin" accounts to edit from, but it is not the same as being one of the unwashed. I did this once before - and I have "left" the project before. I don't want to "leave" ... but I think I need to give back the tools. I have no idea if there are any "clouds" to be considered, but I think for now I need to be unencumbered of the tools. Thanks folks. — Ched : ?  04:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Enjoy your break. 28bytes (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Have to admit I didn't know you were an admin, but I actually think the best admins are ones you don't notice so that's not a bad thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems a waste of a good admin, but who needs the stress and agro? Happy editing, I've never found being one of the revolting peasants a problem myself so you'll probably find life is far more fun. Giano    (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC concerning Clerking requests for adminship


Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: 2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblio worm  22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. –xenotalk  15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey
Yo crats, when someone gets a chance, please remove my admin bit. No drama or whatever necessary; not really using 'em, and better not to cling to 'em for no reason. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you for your service, WK. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

About "courtesy vanishing" and unvanishing
Now that renames are under the Global rename policy, Courtesy vanishing is outdated. Once we rename a user (even in the context of a so-called "vanishing"), I do not think that we can undo that action and rename a user (or "unvanish" them) against their will under the GRP to "punish them for returning". Accordingly, I think that we should no longer offer "vanishing" as such (nothing was ever really vanishing anyway) but simply indicate we can rename a user to "renamed user nnnnnn" on their request and they can simply stop editing. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If an unvanishing shan't be done, then make vanishing permanent: vanish & block or no vanish at all. Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've long said vanishing can only be done if vanished & blocked. We can't have vanished accounts editing. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Xeno on this one.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming is global now and has become a rather clerical affair as some renaming policies contradict each other. One example is the use of company names in account names, on en.WP, it is not allowed, but there is no global consensus to not do so - indeed, I believe some project actively encourage it. As such, in that case if a username is against local policy, the renamers will still accept it and it is up to the local admins to deal with that username violation (for example, by blocking). When it comes to "vanishing", there's always been a bit of haziness around the subject. You cannot actually RightToVanish, due to limitations in the software, but at the same time there is huge benefit in allowing some sort of exit strategy. The very fact that we do something final, can allow people to make a clean break from the encyclopedia, for whatever reason. And what are we doing really? Deleting their user page, blanking their talk page, and renaming the user. All three are completely available to any user, even the vast majority who are not in good standing. Note that global renamers are actually governed by the global right to vanish not the local one. So that leaves the question on what to do about our local page. There we specifically threaten un-vanishing, but on a rename level, that goes against the global policy and is less likely to happen. Locally, however, we can still unvanish, by linking pages with redirects or blocking new accounts to force them back into the vanished account. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that if someone socks (in violation of our policies) to get around a "vanish", then the previous account should be un-vanished. I also believe that while vanishing is a very nice option to offer our editors, I don't feel that our ToS require it, and as such, should be only available to members in good standing. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * and, you seem to be arguing that Right to vanish (created in 2005) is the applicable policy, but there's no indication on the page that it has policy status, or that it might supercede WP:VANISH.


 * You also argue that the global rename policy supercedes local policies (does it?) and that it doesn't allow vanishings/renames to be undone. But the policy doesn't say that.


 * A consequence of the argument is that a disruptive user would be allowed to vanish, and return immediately with a new name or IP addresses to the same articles with the same behaviour. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's best to stop calling it "vanishing" because nothing is being vanished. Users (unless they are under sanctions) are permitted to request renames. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It was called the right to vanish and later courtesy vanishing. Unlike other sites where people can close accounts, Wikipedia doesn't allow that so it arranged for the next best thing. But this was done on the understanding that the user would leave. It's not there so that disruptive users can pretend to leave, split their edit histories, and then carrying on editing the same articles in the same way while pretending to be someone else. That's a violation of SOCK, and when it happens the vanishing is undone.


 * If you want to change that, you would normally need consensus to change VANISH. Instead you're arguing that the global naming policy applies now, and that it doesn't allow renamings to be undone without the user's consent. But clearly a disruptive user who has done what I described above isn't going to give consent. And the global policy doesn't say that renamings can't be undone. It also says the accounts should be clearly linked where there's a history of conflict or where the user did not leave. SarahSV (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin it is unclear to me what is at stake for you in wanting to unvanish. What is at stake for you? Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? How about "...it's not there so that disruptive users can pretend to leave, split their edit histories, and then carrying on editing the same articles in the same way while pretending to be someone else. That's a violation of SOCK..." Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With renames going global, we are just going to have to address administrative concerns such as this on a local level through blocking or other sanctions. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

, that's the part I don't understand. How does the fact that renaming is done globally affect WP:VANISH? You wrote elsewhere that global renaming can't be undone without the user's consent, but it can.

People were always allowed to rename themselves; global renaming hasn't changed anything in that regard. WP:VANISH was a particular form of renaming. The contributions are moved to a random string of characters that's hard to remember, which makes the contributions harder to find. The user page is deleted, as are other pages to which only the user has contributed. Once it's done, the user is expected to leave. If they return, it's undone.

The situation that you seem to support means that a user with a history of conflict, User:A, can ask to be renamed ("vanished") to User:Renamed user Fhgi87n9s8m973k. The renamer can choose to leave no redirect from the old name to the new one. Any editor clicking on User:A's contributions will find nothing, unless they know to click on the talk page, or they know how to find the global rename log.

User:A (now Renamed user Fhgi87n9s8m973k) can continue to edit the same articles as before, logged out, and if he violates SOCK by not telling people he is User:A, there is no consequence. The rename (the "vanishing") will not be reversed, and the IPs won't be blocked for anything but a short time, if even that. He may even be allowed to recreate User:A and continue editing from that account, having "lost" the account's entire contribution history.

I assume that no one thinks this is a good state of affairs. Pinging some global renamers:, , , , , ,. SarahSV (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed some pings:, . Apologies if I've missed others. SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not lost, it still exists at the new name and the old contributions are attributed to the new name. Re-attributing the edits to the old name solves nothing in your hypothetical. If a user is violating SOCK, deal with it at an administrative level. A user could instead choose to change their name to "Purple Monkey Dishwasher Broom" and then violate sock. In this case there is no so-called "vanishing" but they are able to disassociate edits from their old name (to resolve harassment concerns, etc.). If they keep editing under a different name or logged out, you still have to deal with that administratively, forcing the user back onto their old name solves nothing. We can no longer exert local control over usernames, users can always request a rename through the global interface or on another project and we will just have to deal with administrative concerns another way. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  19:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Purple Monkey Dishwasher Broom" is easy to remember. The point of the random string is obfuscation, because it's hard to remember. So renaming is not the issue here; the issue is the form of renaming that we call "vanishing." You are doing this and not blocking the old name, for example, which means it can be recreated and used with a clean contributions history by a user with a history of conflict. Does this not concern you? SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have no way of doing that. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xeno, I don't know what that refers to. You could, for example, block the old name when you're moving a user with a history of conflict. Or make sure that Global rename policy is followed. This says:


 * "To be eligible for a global rename, the request must meet all of the following criteria: ... The old name is duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks. The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct."


 * Regarding "duly and visibly linked," I see that with most of your moves you do leave a link, but with others not. I can't tell what you're doing that is making the difference. SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One cannot block what doesn't exist.
 * The ones that aren't leaving redirects behind are probably usurps. So we omit redirects so the usurping user's pages can go there. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You could leave a redirect and block that; create the account and block it; or salt the user page. You're omitting redirects in cases other than usurps, that's the issue. The global policy says that the links should be retained in cases of users with a history of conflict.


 * What do you suggest can be done to make sure links are retained to some minimal degree, so that users with problematic histories can't "cleanse" their account of contributions they don't like, then start using the same account again as though they're new editors? SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A redirect is a page, not a user, and can't be blocked. If I omit a redirect other than a usurp in renaming, there are probably privacy concerns. Email me about any specific examples and I can explain. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 00:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , please, this is time-consuming enough. I know that a redirect is not a user. I am saying that, when you move a user with a history of conflict, you could create and block the old account, so that they can't re-start it with a clean contribution history.


 * Do you agree that it is not a good thing if User:A (with a history of conflict and 50,000 edits, many of them contentious) is able to turn into User:A (same name, 100 edits, no sign of contention, no link to the other contribs)? SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that "a history of conflict" is not the same as "makes edits I disagree with". How are global renamers supposed to know who has "a history of conflict"? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  01:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing edits someone disagrees with, but (as the global policy says) users with a history of conflict. You could look at AN and AN/I, for example, and see how often that user has posted there recently, and look at some of the threads. If multiple people have expressed recent concern, that would be one indication. The policy doesn't say such users can't have a rename. It says that the old name should be "duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict ...," so clearly the policy assumes that global renamers will look for those things. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have to email me to let me know which case you're talking about lacking a visible link. That said, no, global renamers are not doing deep searches on every potential project of a particular editor requesting a rename. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  02:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally feel that with the change in technical capabilities, we are facing a conflict here. At this point I'd say an RfC needs to be initiated of developing and official VANISH policy that is in compliance with the global policy.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 21:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , I agree, but first we need to find out what to ask in an RfC. I can't currently find out what best practice is. Most renamers seem to leave redirects, for example. I'd like to know what is recommended, and whether there really is a clash between the new policy and VANISH. SarahSV (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to leave a redirect unless they request a privacy rename or a vanish. Since this happens on a global scale, I don't feel it appropriate to undo it, unless there was some global policy about it.  I do however try to make sure the username conforms to policy of most wikis, primarily the home wiki to that user, so they won't have to deal with any problems.  I also apply common sense as long as it won't cause problems in the future.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 02:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , that makes sense. It's going to boil down to judgment. But it seems very unwikilike to "cleanse" contributions in the way I'm seeing it here, by renaming without a redirect, then allowing that user to recreate the old account with no history and start again. Same name, same person, contributions moved, no link between the two, unless you know where to look in the logs. That's surely not best practice.


 * Every single Wikipedian could do that. Maybe we could do it every couple of years to get rid of anything we don't like. SarahSV (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I would only do it if the account is in good standing globally. If they're blocked somewhere, I would prefer to discuss it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman
Greetings, noting here that a request for a desysop has just been posted on the steward noticeboard on Meta with this edit. X-posting it here since bureaucrats can remove admin privileges on this wiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ In capacity as local bureaucrat. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceased administrator
Please see WP:AN for details. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind; I didn't notice that Dreadstar had previously had admin rights removed. Never mind.  Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Active RfA involvment
In the recently closed clerking RfC for RFA2015, the community once again emphatically voiced their trust in the bureaucrats by strongly suggesting (as editors have in other places long before this) that they take a more active part in maintaining order at RfA. However, I (as well as others) have noted that the 'crats never quite get around to doing this, which leads to enormous amounts of frustration as the great controversy over maintaining order at RfA continues to boil. I really think it's time that 'crats put an end to this nonsense arguing, step in, and begin doing what the community clearly trusts them to do... Biblio (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of 'crats who do actively watch RfAs and step in, for example, I recently started moving all discussions over three replies to the talk page - something that I've seen happen quite a lot (including movements by non-'crats) since I started that. I don't think that the 'crats object to taking that larger role. However, there is a balance to be had - RfA is primarily meant to be a discussion of the candidate's abilities. This is one of the reasons we expect the !votes to have a reason behind them. I've seen almost no discussion on any RfA which I'd describe as "nonsense arguing", the majority is civil disagreement over a !vote, which I'd refuse to remove completely. If, of course, you have some better criteria for removing posts or actions that 'crats might take, I'd be interested in hearing them. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the nonsense arguing in general about the task of maintaining some basic decorum at RfA, and who might be "qualified" to do it. Of course, since the clerking proposal failed, I interpret that to mean (after reviewing policies and discussing the issue with the closer) that for all practical purposes the status quo of informal clerking stands. In a sense, this might be better, now that I think about it. But we need to actively encourage it, per BOLD and our basic policies. Anyway, I'm just saying that a great deal of controversy would be put to rest of the 'crats began moderating RfAs more often. Indeed, many discussions are civil and honest disagreements, although sometimes these must be moved because of excessive length. However, we all (should) know very well that occasionally some RfAs become childish mud-slinging circuses, and someone should rein these in (although quite often no one does). Biblio (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The link is 2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. We'll know within a few days, a week at the most, if people are happy with the closing statement. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd still like clarification as to whether a "clerking" bureaucrat can close the discussion. My opinion, for what it is worth and noted at that discussion, is that if the bureaucrat's only contribution is sheriffing the discussion for civility and remaining on-topic, they should be allowed to close. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My reading of that particular bit is that most people opposed to B1 ("Bureaucrats as clerks") did mention involvement as their issue. One or two supporters were conditional on the clerking bureaucrat not being the closing one; most didn't address the question specifically.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of what it means to close an RfC is: there's no expectation that a closer is any smarter than anyone else, but OTOH, there's an expectation that if someone has a problem with the closing statement, it's on them to challenge it. No one has challenged the statement that "we have lots of crats, and they can probably figure out how to divide up duties". That gives you some wiggle-room. Nevertheless, this RfC wasn't very focused, and personally, I'd be hesitant to rely too much on any conclusion. I assume there will be another RFC some day that evaluates whether RfAs are still seen as hostile, and whether what the crats did or didn't do about that was working. Avi, I'm guessing that RfC will probably give you much more helpful guidance than this one did. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, guys (and yes, you're all guys...). If amongst that huge list of bureaucrats and that teensy weensy number of RFAs it's not possible to get more than one 'crat paying atttention and keeping things properly flowing without internicine warfare while still having a completely uninvolved 'crat around to close...well, we're doing it wrong. Risker (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're doing it wrong.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, very wrong [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]] I still think that clerking should not invalidate us from closing, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our Y-chromosome exclusivity can be very easily changed. RFB is thataway, ma'am [[file:face-devil-grin.svg|28px]] -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Activity
Also, I think it pretty clear that a 'crat clerking an RfA is an demonstrates activity as regards Bureaucrats. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's acting as a bureaucrat and counts as activity. The bot will pick it up as activity. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that crats have more to do, I really think it's time that we get some new ones. At the moment, we're rather seriously understaffed. (In theory, there are over two dozen, but in practice you could probably count the number of active crats on your fingers.) Biblio (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotta love the response we are getting. For the record, I am overweight, and certainly not "little". [[file:face-smile.svg|28px]]. -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

FastilyBot in need of a bot flag
Hi, my bot, FastilyBot, was recently approved. Could a bureaucrat please flag the account as a bot so that it doesn't spam recent changes? Thanks! :) - F ASTILY 07:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, have fun!  Maxim (talk)  13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - F ASTILY 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Guidance for Crats clerking RfX
So, further to the above sections, I wonder if we can knock up some simple guidance, in the spirit of 2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/Clerking_RfC.

I'd kick off by suggesting that any clerking Bureaucrat is automatically recused from closing or any CratChat. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Any link to the third RfC is IMO incomplete without a link to the section of the first RfC that was the reason for the third RfC: WP:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. That should give you the full picture ... until the next RfC :/ - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Dweller. Clerking shows no opinion as to the candidate. It is merely streamlining the discussion. As such, the clerk should be considered impartial and be able to participate in CratChat, if not close. I would say from my own part, I would lean away from clerking if it means I could not exercise my primary duty as a 'crat which is to determine community consensus. Maybe I'm wrong. As I'm the only 'crat to have clerked so far since the RfC. May I suggest that other 'crats try clerking and see for yourself if that affects your ability to be an impartial adjudicator of community consensus. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting take, Avi. In my opinion (could be wrong on this) ill-tempered comments more commonly arise from opposers than supporters. Crats have a really well established reputation for fairness, even if we are not perceived as infallible, and I'm worried we may jeopardise this. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Avi, could you make a list of the kinds of clerking actions you've taken, so far? --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Avi has done an exceptional job - and I thank him for that. RfA is a tough thing, or at least it can be.  The community asked you folks (the 'crats) to try to keep things a bit more ... crap, I can't think of a better word - "civil".  Please keep up the good work. — Ched :  ?  09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm keen to get stuck in, as RfX behaviours has long been a concern of mine. I've raised the idea of Crats policing RfX on a number of occasions in the past at this and other venues, but until now without consensus forming. I would just like us to agree some parameters. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recusal, we don't consider an admin involved when they have acted in only an admin capacity. I don't think we should consider a 'crat involved just because they are doing what we have asked a crat to do. Clerking actions should not speak to a bias if done correctly. If a situation calls for recusal then I trust them to recognize that. We chose these people for their judgement, let them exercise it.

If we are going to ask the clerks to not do the primary job of 'crats then we really should choose a different group of people to clerk as we don't have a lot of 'crats and they were chosen to close RfAs. If they have to recuse themselves to clerk, then some of them may just choose not to clerk. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 16:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the Hawkeye RfA has been rather cordial, especially given the issues. What I've done regarding clerking is the following:
 * 1) Removed phrases which I felt only contributed to rancor provided that the point of the editor remains
 * I chose not to refactor anything. I think we should not try to restate people's opinions. Let them speak for themselves; our job is to facilitate the discussion to help the community make up its collective mind.
 * Times where I felt that entire repartees were unhelpful (once) instead of "pasting over" with a note, I just moved it to talk
 * 1) Enforce the two question limit, and yes, we sometimes have to decide what is a second or third question and what is a legal follow-up, and when do follow-ups become excessive, etc.
 * Instead of removing them, though, I collapsed them. This way, the candidate can choose to answer on a talk page or the like.
 * 1) Noted where questions were not directly applicable to candidates status as admin
 * Only noted and not more, since consensus about that issue in the RfC was unclear, as opposed the 2 question limit which was clear

That's all so far, thankfully. I'd like to reiterate, that in the main, the comments have been well stated. Forceful points can be made about a candidate's suitability without devolving into ad hominem attacks on the candidate or other contributors. I would give more leeway to the discussion about the candidate, as opinions about his or her suitability includes matters of his or her temperament and on-wiki activity. For example, SilkTork's opposition is frank, but a representation of Silk Tork's opinion that is not an attack on the candidate as a person, but a detailed explanation of why Silk believes that the candidate currently has qualities that Silk feels are not beneficial for adminship. As always, constructive criticism of my actions is requested and respected. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience with RfAs, the longer a discussion about a vote cast gets (with reply after reply down the page), the more likely it will be to become uncivil or to veer off the subject of the candidate's fitness. I agree that rather than censor an editor's comments, these discussions should be moved to the RfA talk page where those who are interested in pursuing a line of questioning can do so but these conversations will not dominate the main RfA page.
 * It also seemed to me that there are too many instances of multiple follow-up questions (sometimes listed together in the same reply) that really tread the edge of the new 2 question limitation.
 * Also, and this is based on nothing but my sense of fairness, I think that bureaucrats who perform clerk actions on an RfA should be able to participate in a Crat Chat but they should not be the bureaucrat that closes the RfA and posts the outcome. I think we have sufficient bureaucrats that, at minimum, two different bureaucrats can participate in an RfA. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think: RFA can be petty and even cruel at times. Wikipedia works best when it adheres closely to its core principles of civility, neutrality, and embracing the selfless work of volunteers. What little work we can do as bureaucrats to defuse flamewars and disarm trolls really needs to be done for the community will to be carried out in an atmosphere of collegiality and professionalism that encourages participation of friendly and well-meaning folks. Andrevan@ 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Dweller makes some good points. It only takes two Crats, one to clerk, one to close.  Crats aren't that busy, so it won't put a load on the system.  What it will do is reinforce the idea that Bureaucrats are objective readers of consensus.  If an argument breaks out over clerking pro/con, it will not affect the outcome as another Crat is going to be closing.  It isn't that I can't trust the clerking Crat to be fair, we just do it to foster the appearance of fairness and remove any doubt.  The only exception to Dweller's idea is that I think a clerking Crat should be eligible to participate in a Crat chat, but honestly don't feel strongly about it either way. As to HighinBC's concern that it will dissuade Crats from clerking, I would simply say that only one closes each RFA now and we have several active Crats.  If we need more Crats, there are plenty of qualified candidates that will step up and fill the void, so it really isn't an issue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While I think we should still be able to close, if the community is really concerned about it, I can understand letting another crat close. I would be rather discouraged if we could not participate in a cractchat that we have clerked, though. Perhaps we should have a mini RFC to clarify which of the three choices a) no restriction b) no close c) neither close nor cractchat is our mandate? -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tire of RfCs on every single debatable policy change but I guess it is inevitable or someone will cry "foul". Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. If it were up to me, I think that it is selbstverständlich that clerking is not opining. However. as our mandate comes from the project, and as I guarantee you there is a difference of opinion, it may be prudent to generate a baseline consensus. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree, but sadly, the project has become more reliant on the letter of the policy than the spirit. All the world loves a good legal drama. — Ched :  ?  02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to bureaucratic duties, don't be shocked if the community is bureaucratic about it. I think that extremely clear rules are part of why we trust Crats to use discretion at the edges.  I can live with any result, my opining above is what I am guessing the community would support (or at least prefer): different clerks and closers, but any crat can chat.  Chatting is a group thing, not a solo action, so I would be surprised if the community barred that. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One last note: I do feel that if the Crats agreed to the above (or something they agreed to as a group) and did it simply as a matter of practice, no RFC would be needed. What we want above all is consistency.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I acted on my understanding and both closed a discussion and partcipated in its cratchat, and I think that no one had concerns about my partiality, so that is a start [[file:face-grin.svg|28px]]. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say that if the community trusts the bureaucrats to be impartial in their clerking activities, than that trust of impartiality should extend to closure or bureaucrat discussion. Also, the bureaucrat who is doing the majority of the clerking (in the most recent case, Avi) is probably the best placed to do a hard close or participate in a bureaucrat discussion, having been carefully following along the request from start to finish. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree but still torn between that clearly accurate fact and the desire to keep at arm's length for appearances. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tonton Bernardo's votes on the current RfAs
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

has left, erm, brief comments opposing all three current RfAs with signatures that obfuscate their username. One of these has been removed as "trolling" but the other two remain. I'm the nominator in one of the RfAs and I'm supporting another so I'm not the person to decide what should be done, but whatever is done (or not done) I think it should be done consistently across the RfAs. Perhaps a bureaucrat could have a look? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please AGF (in regards to the signature usage), this user has been using this signature for at least a year (Special:Diff/642104963). — xaosflux  Talk 18:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * who performed this "clerking" for comment. — xaosflux  Talk 18:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of the votes that I removed per WP:TPO seemed trollish ("have a nice weekend" and "I oppose because", no ellipses) I left a message on the user's talk page asking to refrain from these votes: s/he may cast another reasoned vote. The editor in question has 8,000 good-faith edits; s/he is not inexperienced. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  ;; t 19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you've removed the comments from two RfAs but not the other? I hadn't realised when I first posted that you'd removed their comments from Brianhe's RfA. I'm not expressing an opinion on the removal, but I feel that if you're going to remove the comments you should be consistent. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I voted on Hawkeye's RfA, so I would be involved; I could have invoked WP:IAR and removed them; however just to stay on the safe side and avoid any major complaints. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 22:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I'm USer:Tonton Bernardo - and I see that some people are unhappy with my vote (one has been deleted). May I nominate that person for Wikipedia Electoral fraud award 2016 ?

Would be a good idea to nominate also a commission to arrange all votes in the way that some guys of your prefer. Maybe we should even open a new category of users, with unlimited rights and I'd like to propose: dictator as consequent title. Might be a job for User:Esquivalience who also tried to make pressure on me. May I nominate that person for deletion please. He/She's not respecting wikipedia rules. I&#39;m so tired (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a better idea: add at least a little substance to your votes at RfA so they'll be taken seriously. clpo13(talk) 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Clpo13,

I do no see why I should justify my votres. Do you have to justify your's when leaving any other polling station? I&#39;m so tired (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, so yes, you should justify your votes, otherwise they'll likely be ignored by whoever closes the discussion. Empty votes (as in, the vote and your signature with nothing else) are technically allowed, but putting something in like "I oppose also because" (with no elaboration) doesn't look like a good faith vote. clpo13(talk) 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a nation state, nor is it a place where the laws of nature do not apply. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed the votes too. I thought it very odd that a user I'd never heard of would leave three oppose votes on three RfAs with no comments. That said, I don't see any policy basis for removing the votes. It'd be different if the editor were blocked as a sock or something along those lines. Otherwise, I think the person's vote should be reinstated. There are many votes without reasons, more often supports than opposes, but it's not required. To the extent it's a close RfA, the bureaucrat(s) can take those sorts of things into account.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, the last RFA RFC suggests that only crats should clerk in anything but obvious cases; while these !votes may not have much weight in the consensus determination - I don't think they are really disruptive; We are fine with "Support - sounds good" type !votes afterall. — xaosflux  Talk 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xaosflux. Opinions without justifications are still opinions, even if they are not as helpful in cases where consensus isn't clear. -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be a tough call on one upcoming close; can't say I envy you folks on that. — Ched : ?  13:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With a watchlist notice now promoting RfA it is no surprise that otherwise anonymous editors will !vote. Leaky  Caldron  14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have mentioned straight aéway in the subject that negative votes are not acceptable.

Might be a good idea also to mention somewhere in the wikipedia policies. I&#39;m so tired (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for the passive/aggressive tone. Harry had a concern - it was reviewed and addressed. — Ched :  ?  16:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I might also point out that when I (on the Hawkeye7 RfA talk page) questioned the crat actions, User:Esquivalience posted thinly veiled threatening comments to my talk page. In effect he accused me with no reason of being a sock puppet. It certainly looks like he voted for Hawkeye7 but did not entirely recuse himself from trolling if not cratish actions. Want a diff? Juan Riley (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/702046159 to save some time. The above user, despite only having 2,000 edits, involved themselves into ArbCom and other embedded meta affairs (such as ANI). I did not remove or modify any of the user's votes or comments. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No you just tried to bully him. Juan Riley (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Third person? <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * could one of you 'Crats close this? It doesn't seem to be headed in positive directions, and the original issue has been addressed. — Ched :  ?  20:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno,, just removed the editor's vote from the Peacemaker67 RfA saying "rv troll". Ironically, that's after I reverted an IP making a similar edit on two RfAs. I guess people are doing whatever they please.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Esquivalience sigh. Nice job..and per Ched please close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanRiley (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess we should close this thread and then let the user elaborate if they want to. Since this is not a democracy, I think the closing crats will decide as to the comments' merits, anyway. epicgenius ( talk ) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * could somebody of you guy's please BAN ME FROM ALL WIKIPEDIA accounts ?

I've noticed by this thread, and the threats that were sent me on other pages, that this site is managed by some kind of warfst, maybe CIA operated, or fanatized anti--democrats. I do not want to sit in the same boat with you. I hat guys like you and I do not want to make any edits and pages at wikipedia anymore. Kindly close my account. And ban me from all wikipedia sub-pages (as I asked already in 2 others)L.K Thanks warfs, you are not worthwile a damn second of attention. I&#39;m so tired (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we don't ban people on request. If you don't want to participate anymore, simply stop coming here. Also, when a discussion is closed, it is closed. Please don't make comments on closed topics. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke bot flag for User:Abotzi
Hello 'Crats, please revoke the  flag for, as the operator has vanished (bot was an AWB bot and can not run without an operator either). Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (BAG member)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a strong reason to have blocked it; this doesn't match standard procedure for deflagged abandoned accounts. — Earwig   talk  05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked. — xaosflux  Talk 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Earwig   talk  05:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins for February 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

S@bre's username should be entered in the user rights form as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=S@bre #719219].

Thanks to all of the above-mentioned users for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) I have fond memories of some of those editors. I'd happily welcome them all back. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting here that Hdt83 was apparently missed in the procedural deadmin.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good eye, fixed. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa thanks, Jo-Jo. -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just curious, have we considered enlisting a bot to report inactive admins? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A bot already does, it just doesn't place the report here at the expiration. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 11:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe
An editor has requested bureaucrat review of the unilateral closure of Brianhe's RfA; specifically input by uninvolved bureaucrats. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no review needed, as far as I can see. Nihonjoe acted within the limits of what we bureaucrats are allowed to do; bureaucrat chats are not required for every RfA that falls into the discretionary range. If a bureaucrat - in this case, Nihonjoe - feels secure enough to make such a close on their own and can justify it either way, that's completely acceptable. Acalamari 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've commented there (special:diff/703533202). if I could suggest one thing: typically in very close results we have rendered the decision as "no consensus" instead of "unsuccessful". I realize the net outcome is the same, but the former is understood to be a more fair and accurate word choice. Perhaps you could modify simply that? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  11:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I thought that's what I had done. It has been clarified. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In answer to: in very close results we have rendered the decision as "no consensus" instead of "unsuccessful", let me slightly disagree. A closing person has to take a decision, and take responsibility for this decision. When closing a Request for Adminship, the closing person has to chose from three statements:
 * Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is successful.
 * Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is not successful.
 * Having to decide in such a non consensus situation, my decision is Move on, shameful community, make your decision by yourselves, instead of relying on the almighty Bureaucrats to clean a situation you have shamefully messed.
 * Facing a non consensus situation by only stating that the situation is a non consensus situation is not a fourth choice, but only saying that Bureaucrats are useless. Moreover, https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=en.wikipedia.org&begin=2015-02-01&end=2016-01-31 suggests that, among circa 1300 of them, only 850 admins have exerted at least ONE registered action in the last 12 months. Should we trust these figures  (and give any weight to the figures relative to the Bureaucrats themselves) ? In such a case, new improvements of the process could be required. Pldx1 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. If a bureaucrat feels there is no consensus, they cannot deliver a successful result. You may be mistaking "consensus unclear" for "no consensus". As to your comment about administrators not using their tools, I'm not sure the relevancy. Activity requirements were recently implemented for bureaucrats, fyi. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "no consensus", "unsuccessful"... Neither term is inaccurate or unfair in my reading. It was unsuccessful because there was no consensus. I really don't think either term implies a different result or is more or less fair. Just word choice. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

, when there is no consensus amongst the participants in a discussion to afford access to a toolset, the status quo remains and access is not provided. Some of us like the term "no consensus" to emphasize that when we close, we are not acting on our own decisions, but clarifying the contributors' overall decision, or lack thereof. I would suggest that your interpretation of Move on, shameful community, make your decision by yourselves, instead of relying on the almighty Bureaucrats to clean a situation you have shamefully messed is inaccurate and misleading, at least in my experience. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Crat chat for discretionary range
Since this is apparently the place to talk about these issues, I bring to your attention two posts I placed on the previous page, but I shall add that short of coming up with a new consensus-binding guideline for requiring a Crat-chat for all the discretionary range, I want to hear your views of doing it voluntarily. I am concerned here with what I have made clear in the posts, namely, that the decision process is not as transparent as you may think and that a reform is needed. But here I just want to hear your thoughts about a voluntary Crat chat when the process is not obvious. I felt comfortable with the way Avi led the Crat chat in the previous RfA, even when I disagreed sharply (but did not voice) with some of the crats' criteria (e.g., arbitrary discounting voices because they may not have been as articulate as other). Following my suggestion of voluntary (unforced, but willful) Crat-chat in the discretionary range may not solve or satisfy everyone at the moment, but it would bring more openness to the process. I am almost positive that this last nominee would have preferred the chat to help make sense of what just happened; it gives closure to a contentious debate. Not doing it may have helped the fact that the discussion spilled over and Joe had to (because it was not the first time mentioned to cease) close the discussion in Brianhe's RfA's page. At the heart of my concerns here is not redressing the past, but the short and long-term futures: the candidate and those who participated. I think you need to make it more manageable for them to make sense of what just took place. What I am reading all over the place is something like this, "oh, things are just like this." Well, then, I think it is our fault that the RfA process is such that we can only excuse it with these words. Neither I see it fair nor clear. But we can start with talking about a voluntary Crat chat in the discretionary zone. Thanks. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  17:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that all RfAs that fall in the discretionary zone should have a cratchat? Because that doesn't really sound all that voluntary. 'Crats are bound by policy more than any other role, and so if you want them to pernanently change their behavior, you should really look to change the relevant policy, rather than seeking promises like this. Just IMO. jeez, these sorts of situations are why I resigned 'cratship; nothing good ever came out of trying to close RfAs Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking for clarification. As I mentioned above more than once, I am limiting my request here to ask for your views of a voluntary Crat-chat within the discretionary zone. I purposely used the word "unforced" for this reason. There are other sub-questions that could be raised within this broader query (e.g., when even a RfA in a discretionary zone has an evident outcome, and how to word the finale, etc.), but here, I want to hear how you take my concern about the power of the Crat-chat in clarifying the process, particularly when the numbers are within the discretionary range. Thanks. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Crat chats do not change outcomes, they add clarity for the single Crat who is doing the closing. This is why they are seldom used.  The policy change is why it was used last time, and Avi made a good call.  The closing Crat can still (technically) close against a consensus of Crats, so it isn't "voting round 2", and the opinions of Crats in a chat are not binding, so it is pointless to force a chat where it is not needed. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The main reason why I responding to your post is to correct an apparent perception of my words: "force". I just wanted to hear your views about the usefulness of the chat and how it may help new people and even the candidate to clarify what had taken place in the RfA. Otherwise, at the beginning you did address the question. Thanks Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  18:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As a group, Crats hate drama. If a close is really borderline, they aren't afraid to call a chat.  Most RfAs don't need it.  We may disagree, and although I voted in this RfA, I think I can be unbiased enough to see the outcome was fairly clear, which is why the chat wasn't needed.  I think people look at the percentages too much.  I've closed other discussion that had 2/3rds support, yet I closed them as no consensus. This is a perfect example.  No one complained, and even DrC sent me a thanks (as did others) because he understood why and how I reached that conclusion, which was actually more difficult than this RFA.  Those are tough cases, but "consensus" is bigger than the numbers.  In this RfA, my opinion is that the consensus was weaker than the numbers indicated.  Hopefully, Brianhe will take the advice given and run again in the future, where I could possibly support.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Slightly unrelated to the discussion here, but if the problem is that a RfA is stalemated, a better alternative is to lengthen the RfA by 1-2 days. Cratchats are less effective then short extensions in such cases. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 01:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Crats will do that. I think they extended Hawkeye's. There are lots of situations when that makes sense, although they are rare.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats are all clear about current policies and guidelines.

The RfB process is very efficient at choosing people who stick to policies and guidelines.

It therefore follows that if you're looking for a group of editors to ignore all rules and do something different "voluntarily", the Bureaucrats are the last group of editors that you would want to choose.

If community consensus forms that all RfXs in the discretionary zone should be decided by CratChat, the Crats will of course follow that consensus, but unless and until that happens, we'll continue to work in the way we do, which is that each RfX will be assessed on its own merits and sometimes a Crat will decide for themselves and sometimes they will choose to open a CratChat. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dweller's thoughtful comments are spot-on, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Very accurate, Dweller. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No issues with anything, other than what was identified in another thread relating to consistency in approach. If a 'crat chat is agreed and held open for a particular 'crat to "opine" and within a few days an RfA with an almost identical profile in terms of the swing in voting pattern and the 'crat for whom the first 'crat chat was left open peremptorily closes it without a 'crat chat, then there is apparent inconsistency in approach. I have no issue with the resulting outcome in either case, but I would have expected a 'crat who's own RfB was subject to a 'crat chat and who's request to "opine" had delayed a closure 3 days earlier would have considered a 'crat chat in the second RfA, or at least explained why a 'crat chat wasn't needed in the second RfA. Bear in mind that approx. 100 new contributors to RfA are joining in following the Watchlist message. Apparent consistency is as important as actual consistency. Anyway, hopefully something will come of 's proposal . Leaky  Caldron  16:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm having trouble grasping this so-called 'inconsistency' people are pointing out regarding delaying the closure of an already-opened bureaucrat discussion so that a bureaucrat who stated they wished to opine, could opine, and the non-opening of a bureaucrat discussion. Where is the inconsistency? That we held a bureaucrat discussion open for a few hours to allow a particular bureaucrat to opine does not suddenly mean that same bureaucrat is then required to open a bureaucrat discussion on a completely separate and dissimilar request. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaky caldron I strained my mind trying to follow your logic. As far as I can tell it is a non-sequitur. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 16:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what my RfB having a 'crat chat has to do with anything. I had no control over that, and I've never let it affect how I handle RfA discussions. Every RfA is different, no matter how similar you think they might be. Therefore, every RfA can and should be handled on its own merits, and not necessarily be influenced by any procedures implemented on a different RfA. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I have opened at least one or two 'crat chats in the past, so it's not like I completely avoid them. They are only necessary when the closing 'crat is unable to determine consensus on their own. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strain away. I would expect nothing more than a Crat of 'crats, or whatever the collective noun is, to stick together. Simply put, and leaving everything thing else out of it, the second RfA warranted a 'crat chat on the same basis as the first, or the first didn't need a 'crat chat. They were identical in major respects. Jo's involvement in the first is not relevant. His failure not to account for the similarity between the 2 and treat them in the same way is inconsistent. Now, quit your badgering and wait for the RFC to be opened. Leaky  Caldron  17:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The collective term you are looking for is, believe it or not, "a shuffle of bureaucrats". Keri (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "badgering" you as you said in your edit summary. People are just disagreeing with you. Your conclusion does not follow your premise. There is no conspiracy against you here, if you want to change policy propose a change in the appropriate venue. If anyone is badgering here it is you. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep trying to imply (and failing) that my actions were in some way unusual. Every 'crat who has commented here and elsewhere has told you that you are wrong. A significant percentage of non-'crats commenting have said the same thing. The only people who seem to have a problem with how things were handled are those who supported the candidate in question. I'm fine with someone (you? DGG? someone else?) creating an RfC if you want to propose a change to how things are and have been done, but trying to imply that the correct process wasn't followed is just flat out false. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You really need to get facts straight if you are going to use phrases like "Every 'crat who has commented here and elsewhere has told you that you are wrong." I made 6 edits here only 1 on this subject where I was pointing out that end result was correctly gauged in both cases. This thread is my only other comment on this issue. You are confusing me with someone else. Please try to be accurate when you are denigrating a fellow editor.  Leaky  Caldron  17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is why it is good to try to keep discussions like this in one place. You made comments over here, too. I was including those in the overall discussion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. That is the same link I provided above. Really, if you wish to persist in this nonsense that I have been told I'm wrong here, there and everywhere, would you mind supporting your claim with a diff. or two? The only minor comment I made there on this topic was supported by DGG, otherwise nothing. Please stop making accusations that cannot be supported. Leaky  Caldron  18:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your general opinion, from what I can gather from all of your comments, is that you believe I closed the RfA incorrectly. As I stated, every 'crat (who has commented...I can't speak for those who have not commented) disagrees with the position that the RfA was closed incorrectly. I'm not accusing you of anything. If I have misunderstood your stance on this issue, I apologize. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that you have misunderstood. You're plain wrong. I opposed both candidates, agreed the need for a 'crat chat and agreed with the closes. Suggest you actually read my contributions rather than making a general assumption. No where have I ever suggested that the decision to have a 'crat chat or either final close decision was in error. I have actually supported existing 'crat policy on the subject. The issue here is, bluntly, your blinkered view of what you think rather than what the actual evidence makes clear. Leaky  Caldron  18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to hear back from bureaucrats, probably don't post to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Bureaucrats determine the result of any given RfA on the facts and merits of that particular request. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a bureaucrat but it seems like the fundamental misunderstanding between some of the editors here and the crats who are responding is that the editors view the two RfAs in question as very similar while the crats see them as very different and unique. The insistence that a crat chat should have happened is based on the view that the two requests were, as Leaky says, "identical in major respects." Without rehashing the RfAs, perhaps the crats could explain the different circumstances they saw which might satisfy those who are arguing that the process isn't transparent. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The major difference, of course, is that one editor is a former administrator: such RfAs are typically judged with finer lens to ensure that opposition merely for disagreeing with otherwise legitimate administrator acts is weighted appropriately. Perhaps these editors could highlight out the similarities they're seeing, apart from the raw percentage at close. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And that former administrator had the tools removed from them, rather than just giving them up. That makes a big difference, too. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

In opening this subsection, it was never my intention to bring any "drama" here or to tax your already overburden schedules. It was only a question about views. I appreciate Liz's rephrasing and improvement of the question. We would all benefit from your answers, but I would like to repost my original concern, which parallels that of Liz: What is your view about the power of Crat-chats in clarifying the RfA process, particularly for those who are not veterans and even for the candidate itself (who may well be veteran, but considering the circumstances may benefit from a clearer process). The question about how you feel of a voluntary Crat-chat (one in which you do not have to call it, but you still do) is not misleading or distracting, but it is an honest inquiry into how the Crats see their participation in this type of discussions. The other side of the question may be, do you see the Crat chat as obtrusive, too burdensome, and potentially more confusing? Though as the context above shows the last RfA as the origin of my concern (shared by some), it is not merely about the last two, more about how do we move to the future. From my perspective, I see a crack in communication, clarity, which can lead to deficiencies in trust. I understand that you follow policy and that if we want a change of policy, we should move this discussion to another page, but before following any other step we would benefit from your views on the question I posted above. Again, here I am not questioning Joe's motives, as I said before, I think he followed the book. My sincere wish is to have an exchange free from personal attacks and hear about how you view the impact of Crat chats and how you feel about opening them. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The only time I consider opening a 'crat chat is if, after carefully reviewing an RfA, I am unable to determine what the consensus of the discussion is. The 'crat chat can help in cases such as that by talking things out with the other 'crats. In cases where I have no problem seeing what the consensus is (or what the "no consensus" is), there is no reason to open one. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Joe, so, let me have this clear: Would you only open a Crat chat for personal clarification? Even if the chat could help others, you would prefer to use it only to what the policy required it for, to elucidate, clear up, enlighten an outcome potentially unclear to you. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A 'crat chat is not (and has not ever been) meant to help clarify things for others. It's a discussion among 'crats to help clarify how a discussion should be closed. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this 'voluntary bureaucrat discussion' suggestion, it seems you are asking us to commit to always opening a bureaucrat chat in a discretionary situation (that's not 'voluntary'). As a group we do not institute new/novel procedures unless community consensus exists for it. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Crat chat for discretionary range (break)

 * Xeno, I have addressed your question already. Your impression is not my intention, and thus, I apologize for not being clearer (I tried to include more to provide context, but it seems that in hurried discussions, less is more). I just want to hear about your views regarding the Crat chat impact on others, beyond Crats. Do you see it so differently that we see it (non-veterans)? Yet, it seems I am nearing to an answer. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is what you are saying is that "the result of a bureaucrat discussion is 'easier' to accept than a result handed down by a single bureaucrat only"? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Xeno, let's be clear, here we are diverting a bit from the original question, but I am glad to address yours now: Simply put, yes, I thought it was obvious, but "obviously," it was not. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what is the question you're trying to ask? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Joe already answered it from his view (thanks for that). To rehash it, would you ever consider opening a Crat chat for the purpose of making the process more open for the WP community (particularly when it is in the discretionary zone), or would you only do it when it is not clear to you? Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  19:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see from Bureaucrats, the only policy guidance for bureaucrats on closing RfAs is Determine whether there is a consensus that the person should be promoted using the traditional rules of thumb and your best judgement. That's it. Crat chats aren't even mentioned or suggested so they should not be considered standard practice unless the policy and guidelines are changed.
 * The chats occur on request from one bureaucrat, to hear feedback from other crats and I don't believe they are done for the benefit of the larger community. It is good that the chat is public as these discussions could have easily occurred on an email list like functionaries' discussions are. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * x20 that is a read herring. The reason this is in public is because there is no private information at play. Discussions sometimes happens on functionaries-l is because a situation leans heavily on private information and concern the use of the CU or OS tools. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CRATCHAT exists. Leaky  Caldron  19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but wanted to see if the Crats saw in them the same value we (me and those who have expressed similar concerns) saw in them, and thus would have been willing to open them in moments when they would perceive "we" would benefit from it Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual policy page that governs RfA is here: Administrators. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You got me, Leaky, I didn't know that page existed, much less that records are kept about when a crat chat has happened or how long they last. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What is your view about the power of Crat-chats in clarifying the RfA process
 * Indeed, bureaucrat discussions can give a deeper insight into how bureaucrats individually and as a group approach closing RfX'en, this can help newer users understand the RfX process
 * do you see the Crat chat as obtrusive, too burdensome, and potentially more confusing?
 * No, and certainly we really don't have much to do anymore so if the community consensus were developed for "discretionary range==mandatory bureaucrat discussion", we would be more than willing to oblige. My opinion is that this would not necessarily be kind to the candidate: having multiple bureaucrats over a period of 24-72 hours opine that the RfX is not successful might be more crushing than simply having one do so, and it of course provides yet another community venue where non-bureaucrats are opining one way or the other (the talk page of the bureaucrat discussion); basically adding to the 'stress-week' of the RfA proper
 * would you ever consider opening a Crat chat for the purpose of making the process more open for the WP community (particularly when it is in the discretionary zone), or would you only do it when it is not clear to you?
 * I would prefer if first considered the affect on the candidate: as explored above, simply opening a bureaucrat discussion to assuage the concerns of the community may not be kind to the candidate. Bureaucrats are already "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner", so if any particular closure seems to lack transparency, the community is free to seek clarity at the bureaucrats talk page, or the bureaucrats' noticeboard (as is ongoing in the current thread). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Xeno. These are excellent answers! If you allow me to sneak yet another, but for clarification. Could I assume, then, that your concern for the candidate's wellbeing makes you lean toward not opening a Crat chat if you see the outcome crystal clear anyway? Caballero / Historiador ⎌  19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes: if I was settled on what I felt was an accurate read of consensus: a justifiable and defensible result upon which I was able to compose a coherent closing statement encapsulating my thoughts, I would not open a bureaucrat discussion (unless some hypothetical policy consideration required it). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Xeno, Thanks very much. You have answered my question(s). Just to point to the context of the original question and the diff I submitted above, I find that you guys are walking a fine line, and in your attempt to make the process open while also show kindness to the candidate, you may have overestimate the negative impact of the Crat chat on the candidate and subestimate its power to make things better for everyone, even for the candidate. But that is why it is a fine line: we don't know for sure how the candidate would see this, unless we ask them. Thanks!!! Caballero / Historiador ⎌  19:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that such bureaucrat discussions (opened to 'make the process more open' instead of 'source wider opinions on an unclear situation', as now) would be "process for process' sake". You can see from WP:CRATCHAT that bureaucrat discussion are rather rare, very much the exception rather than the rule. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A paradigm shift could be helpful
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

For the present, RfA is to be decoded as Request for Adminship. And this results into attributing (or not) something between a Bachelor's degree in Wikipedia Letter Soup and a Speech Contest Award. Another approach would decode RfA as Recruitment of Administrators. And then, the key criterion would be balancing the load of work to be done (according to relevant measures) with the available working force (according to relevant measures). Additional question: should such a shift be described as an innovative change of policy or as the come back of an old practice ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be suggesting unpacking the admin tools and granting some that are "needed" to the "available working force". The community has consistently opposed unpacking the toolset whenever it's been suggested. See Perennial_proposals. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That discussion is probably better suited for WT:RFA, where a broader section of editors interested in the process can comment, than the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. 28bytes (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to be discussing those ideas. As Dweller has pointed out, they have already been proposed and soundly rejected time and time again, but you are welcome to propose them again in the proper forum.  This is not that forum.  It is time to drop the stick, and admit (or at least accept) that policy was followed to the letter.  If you want to change policy, WP:BN is not the place to discuss, propose or demand it.  Take it to the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crat chat for discretionary range (arb break)
Just to make a small but relevant point in support of Nihonjoe, personally, if I'd been the closing Crat in the Hawkeye RfA, I wouldn't have opened a Cratchat. That's not to criticise the Crat who did - I can understand why they chose to - but an observation that the noise from a couple of editors of "why didn't you do the same thing here?" could equally be turned on it's head as a "why didn't you do the same thing there?". The answer to both questions is the same. The closing Bureaucrat looked at the RfA and assessed whether they could determine consensus. In the case of Hawkeye they decided they weren't sure, so in my book that was a good decision. In this case, Joe was sure, so in my book that was a good decision. --Dweller (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In my world bureaucrats are not freelance - they follow rules not for individual interpretation. Obviously WP interprets the bureaucrat's role here as a sort of "please yourself". So no consistency = the "noise" as you describe the comments made by a few people who think consistency (either way) would have been preferable. Leaky  Caldron  22:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But the thing here is that the rule is individual interpretation. When bureaucrats (as individuals) interpret the results of an RfA into a consensus (or lack thereof), they are doing it because that's exactly what the rules tell them to do. So, if you want RfAs that fall within the discretionary range to consistently start a cratchat, you need to change the rules to require that--otherwise, this kind of thing is exactly what the rules are telling the crats to do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not here, or anywhere, advocated that as a remedy. Others have done, not me. I really wish you would stop misreading what I said. Leaky  Caldron  22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry I misread what you said, then. It wasn't intentional. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * could you please let us know what aspects of these two requests you found so similar in nature as to require a bureaucrat discussion "for consistency"? –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

−
 * This isn't going to go anywhere. The reality is that a 'discretionary range' close is subjective - crat chat or no crat chat. Either we just do away with this discretionary thing and have a hard x% rule or we live with individual crat decisions. It is totally legitimate to bring up concerns about a close (and I'm disappointed that not every crat is treating those concerns with due respect) but it doesn't make sense to go on about it. If sufficient numbers of editors feel that a crat is consistently making bad decisions, then they should bring it up in the form of an RfB recall or take it to arbcom or whatever the procedure for de-crating happens to be. Personally, though I supported the RfA and I think the opposers were completely misguided, given the strength of those opposes, I don't see how any crat could close it any other way. Doesn't seem much point in having a chat just to have a chat. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am agreeing with regentspark. Though only two crats answered my question(s), I take the silence of others as consenting. I think we raised legitimate concerns here, but this forum may have reached the end of its usefulness (unless more Crats would like to join, of course). To those who participated, thanks! Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  00:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Crats and other have bent over backwards to accommodate the questions about the close. They have boiled down mainly to disagreeing with the outcome without a single reference to any policy misinterpretation or violation.  Looking at the RFA page and here, I would disagree and say that everyone has been amazing patient with those who keep asking the same questions.  Just because someone asks a question doesn't mean every Crat is going to opine about it, nor should they feel obligated.  Again, we need to drop the stick instead of stirring the pot with it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis, hopefully you are not misreading me. I am in no way thinking differently from you. I meant to give closure to my own questioning feeling satisfied with the answers, even when it would have been even better with more Crats' involvement. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  00:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not down on you, I'm just wanting everyone to go edit something, go mentor someone, go create a template, just go. This is literally beating a dead horse.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Motion to close
Discussion here is way past its due date and is putting the bureaucrats in zugzwang, so this discussion should be closed. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Second the motion. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  05:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary range
A current RFA nearing the closing time is likely to fall within the new discretionary range as per the recent RFC. I want to make sure the crats are aware of the new discretionary range and apply it in closing the RfA. I have not voted in the RfA. Ynr01 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there are a number of !votes after the official stated time of close, and a number of !votes may possibly have been associated with an off-wiki site not to be named here. Collect (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chat is now open. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably messed up some formatting bot-wise. If someone can tweak that, I'd be grateful. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any bots to worry about on bureaucrat discussions. There is a category, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of formatting header templates (modeled after my own 'crat chat back in 2013), even though I'm not (yet?) a 'crat. Revert or tweak as you see fit. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. And, User:Salvidrim!, if you want to join the Wikipedia migraine club, WP:RFB is thataway, no one is stopping you [[file:face-devil-grin.svg|28px]]. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. I don't feel like there is any need for more 'crats, and although I do assess consensus frequently in closing miscellaneous discussions, I rarely visit RfA discussions, so am probably not the best to clerk/close them. ;) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But we need more galley slaves (my arms are getting tired)! -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then put your money where your mouth is and nominate me if you really think I can be of any help! ;) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, additional voices are always useful. I would like to see, , and throw their hats in the ring too. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  13:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Xeno ... Dave reached out to me too, and I appreciate it. I'm hip-deep in a TFA project that's going to take several months, but I'll check back in and see how things are going when I'm done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Brianhe curious as to why this did not go for a Crat chat after it was put on hold as it was in the Discretionary range.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained over here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot flag request JJMC89 bot


Please flag my bot account. Thanks. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins for March 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, with thanks for their service. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Admin status


Hi. I'd like my tools back now, please. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging for comment as rights were removed following emailed request. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Either one of you might want to drop him an email as he hasn't edited since March 2nd. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done that. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a look in the usual places. I found two potentially relevant threads (1, 2), but they were from about a month prior to the self-desysop request and to my mind, they don't seem to impinge on re-granting the tools. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything which would prevent return of the tools. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say the reasons given were personal, there did not appear to be any evasion of scrutiny at the time. Apologies that I'm not in a place to comment further. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 04:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ As there have been no concerns raised or found, the admin bit has been twiddled to the "On" position. Welcome back. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Another readmin
Blargh. So, I find myself getting sucked back in, at least a little. I didn't really need the admin tools back at first, but I've seen a few things which could use doing, so I might as well get them back--though hopefully those things will be done before the 24 hour wait is up. Previous thread here; nothing controversial (not that you can take my word for it). Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cue the fireworks and ticker tape!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Writ! Bishonen &#124; talk 21:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC).
 * I don't see any concerns preventing their return. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - welcome back. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Desysop
<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; overflow:auto; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like relinquish my admin rights. I no longer feel like I'm using them as I intended during my WP:RFA, and I"m finding too many of my non-routine admin actions being disputed. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 04:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for your service. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me as well. For posterity: 1, 2, 3: although such reviews are typically only conducted following restoration requests, in my opinion this self-relinquishment does not raise significant WP:RESYSOP #2 concerns. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  09:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as a non-crat, the user is owning up to the fact that they are out of touch with proper admin policy, so I would say it's a non-cloud removal.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 12:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clouds are decided on reinstatement not removal. To say he is admitting that he is out of touch may be misreading his comment. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't exactly what I meant. But regardless, I see no reason to not reinstate in the future if he wanted them back.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 14:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This was my point, but it was not meant to invite further discussion, merely to place some pointers to things that would be hard to find later. Closing. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


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

Inactive admins for April 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity: Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 12:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅; with thanks from me as well. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot flag request
Hello 'crats, please add  for  per extended trial approval at WP:RFBA. For BAG, — xaosflux  Talk 13:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (TParis)


I believe I retired while under no clouds. I'm interested in resuming work, part-time. Thanks.--v/r - TP 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rights were relinquished here. Brief check found no concerns. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Welcome back TParis. :D—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't see any problems. Just a few more hours and we can retwiddle the bit. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (Zippy)


Hi folks, saw I was just de-adminned. Would appreciate reinstatement. --Zippy (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the project ! I'm sure a 'crat will process this soon, hopefully you can help us out at WP:ADMINBACKLOG, there is a lot of work to do! —  xaosflux  Talk 11:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Had to check - but honestly thought you were a crat. TIL. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  11:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. You should run an RfB.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 13:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Qualifies for reinstatement after the standard hold period. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - welcome back. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary Desysop request
My time for wikipedia editing has diminished significantly in the few past months and is unlikely to increase in the short term. For these reasons I'm requesting that my access to administrative tools be removed. When and if I return I may request resysoping as per site policy-- Cailil  talk 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅; thanks for your service. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * TY-- Cailil  talk 21:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename and lock of an impostor account
Hi Bureaucrats. I've just had the former user get in touch by email. It seems that some years after he took up his right to vanish, an impostor registered a new account with the same name. This was quickly noticed and blocked, but the impostor's edits remain visible as contributions for "Homeontherange". He asks if the impostor account could be renamed to something else and the name "Homeontherange" permanently locked. This seems reasonable to me. Could you make that happen? —  Scott  •  talk  18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine renaming it as disruptively registered, not quite so clear on the best way to lock it from further registration without just re-registering it and leaving it dormant. Pinging some stewardy types . –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's locked right now, but I can understand the user's concern with his former name being a vandalism-only account. We could rename the account, and add the username to the global title blacklist (as an exact case) to prevent anyone else from taking it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a plan. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If no else objects, I'll go ahead and start the rename, but ACC and the global renamers should be informed of the locked username, so other users with abilities to override the blacklist don't inadvertently create it when asked to.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And ✅—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 19:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be forcibly registered and blocked with no history. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the username to the title blacklist. An error message will pop up when attempting to create the name or rename a user to that, which should be sufficient. If people think that creating the account and blocking it would be good (personally I don't see much of a difference to what is there now), then a sysop can override the blacklist. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much all for your swift assistance. —  Scott  •  talk  20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that any user such as myself can override the blacklist, so I'll drop a note on the ACC list and the global renamers list to be sure.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note for anyone interested: the title blacklist apparently doesn't block renaming to a blacklisted name. Second time yesterday that I assumed extensions actually worked the way they were supposed to! Anyway, I've created and locked the username, so that will have the same effect. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask for cases of users wishing to unvanish and the name is taken. How would proceed for accounts such as this one, simply rename the locked account and give the user their own account back?  What about cases where another user registers the username after the vanish?—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Online 19:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've long said that, as part of vanishing, the former account name should be forcibly recreated (void of editing history), locked (not blocked), FPP'ed, and scrambled. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but depending on how active the vanished user was (some users who request to vanish have only have a handful of edits, for example), this would be denying a potentially desirable name to a future editor. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the user vanished, and a good faith user started using their username, then they would have to unvanish to some other username. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 21:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As per the right to vanish, is it possible to suppress the log entry that now appears at User:Homeontherange as well as the log entries at User talk:Homeontherange? As there is no user page or user talk page the log entries appear instead and that works at cross-purposes with vanishing. If it's not possible to suppress or otherwise make invisible the log entries could someone, as a courtesy, create blank pages at User:Homeontherange and User talk:Homeontherange so at least the log entries aren't immediately visible to casual users? 76.65.207.36 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've created blank pages. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A better way to create blank pages is this. The page was created with the text . See, the byte count is zero. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll remember that for next time. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed
FYI when admins have the bit removed they should be added to the extended confirmed group; the system will only promote once, so if somebody is automatically promoted, becomes an admin, and the is desysoped they won't get the extended confirmed right back. This won't be an issue for a while, since most admins who will be desysoped anytime soon were admins before the autopromote thing (so MediaWiki will have no problem autopromoting them). It's probably not a bad habit to get into now, though, and it causes less entries in the user rights log :) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or may be just all admins should be added to the group.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Current admins that stop being admins will get this automatically on their next edit - this is a very edge case and is only needed if this is manually removed from someone when they become an admin - the best course of action is probally: don't do anything (i.e. when adding +sysop, leave +ec along). — xaosflux  Talk 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I was getting at, just working under the assumption that they'd have that removed when they got the bit, though your way is probably better :) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We can leave it in place, but there's no guarantee another admin won't remove it citing redundancy. And the fact is, there are really not that many articles with this protection in place: unless the user edits one of those areas, they may never need the userright. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot flag for User:JarBot
Hello 'crats, would you please add  for  per Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux  Talk 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Acalamari 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I was mulling this one over last night. Meant to post but sleep came first. Is there wide consensus to always have the portal link? The scope of this bot covers an awful lot of main space and after the "Research" outcry, a little re-assurance would be appreciated. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 08:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of such a consensus on enwiki. I personally dislike these links, they belong on the talk page, not on the article, as they have no information related to the article except in a very loose sense (linking every school to portal:schools is way more remote than what we have otherwise in "see also" and the like). Many portals are not really maintained or checked either (though we also have good ones). Fram (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Such is my concern. And the operator (good faith thru-and-thru, mind you) has English as a second language and the only guidance they've been given regarding consensus is to check with the WikiProject that oversees the portal (which will likely have a bias in favour of adding it). thoughts? Can we tighten the consensus requirements here?  –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * was the BAG approver on this request, I just was clerking this one to here. Earwig, comment please?  —  xaosflux  Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% in support of adding a requirement that all mass addition jobs demonstrate that they have support of a project/portal maintainers - etc prior to running - does this satisfy your concern? —  xaosflux  Talk 11:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would probably work. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have amended the bot approval to require gaining consensus prior to any mass article additions. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As for as the general adding task; article usage of the portal template does appear to have widespread project acceptance in general, though exactly where on the page it belongs (in see-also, included in a navbox, etc) is not very consistent. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I've read out of the request - this operators primary request was to be able to use highapi to read enwiki with the bot, this portal processing seemed to be an excuse. — xaosflux  Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that as well. We probably could have just given him the bot flag as "read-only" if that's all they needed. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, now what should I do?! Just use the bot "read-only" or i can add portal but most coordinate with a wiki projects to take the ear before adding portals related to their projects. thank you.--جار الله (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may still add portals links, but before adding the portals ensure that either the wikiproject or portal maintainers are aware of the activity and support it. So for example before adding the School Portal - establish consensus at Portal talk:Schools or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools - depending on the portal the editors may be more or less engaged at once of those locations. In some cases, lack of objection may be sufficient - but it really depends on the size of the run - if you were going to add Portal:Animals to every possible animal - it would need a lot more support. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine with me. (Also, you folks really need to bring up concerns while BRFAs are active; this one was open for over three months without any objections.) —  Earwig   talk 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't look at every BRFA, and we're supposed to act as a kind of check-and-balance after approval. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will put a request in the project page and wait a week before making any edit, as you told me, thank you.--جار الله (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (Protonk)
Hi, I'm. The bit was removed at my request in March of last year (no controversy, not under a cloud). I'd like to have it restored please. Let me know if I can provide more info or answer any questions. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues after the standard 24hrs. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to have you back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I second Dweller's assertion! <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoration Request
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

As per Administrators, I am requesting the restoration of adminship. It was originally granted in June, 2003 and was removed in 2011. I am eligible under policy. Thanks. -- RM 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just barely. In 2010-2012, you had 16 edits total. From 2010 until today, you've had 668 edits (averaging about 92 per year) . Are you sure you are current on all the policies and guidelines that have changed since then? Some of them have been very significant. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * nbo It's a reasonable question, and being very slow and careful with the tools is a good idea, but... (*cough*). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your template is broken. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * you missed the joke. He's refering to nao, but there isn't one for nbo - non-bureaucrat observation. Not it matters, it's not only crats who can comment here. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never used that template. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It exists now, though. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you've always been able to do or for that matter . In fact, let me tag this comment as a . ;)  —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that I'm being noted for having too few edits. 668 is not a lot, but they were beautiful edits. I'm usually more active on the Commons now. I became an admin with 6 votes and joking around. It's way too serious these days, but I've never engaged in abuse, and I've had a ton of opportunity. I've certainly engaged in large scale controversial actions. I've skillfully dealt with problem users, rarely ever having to resort to blocks. I've authored policy and helped form BAG, so I'm no stranger to working with policy, users, and building/determining consensus. I'm generally conservative with admin powers. I do use IAR when needed. I'm sure there is stuff I've missed, and I'd appreciate enlightenment, but I'm sure I'll do just fine if everyone does what they are supposed to do. If you can't trust me at this point, I figure you can't trust anyone. -- RM 23:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one has said you can't be trusted. No one has said you shouldn't get the tools back. My original question was making sure you are comfortable having and using the tools again when you haven't been much involved in enwiki over the last 5+ years. There have been a lot of changes to many different policies, procedures, and guidelines in that time. No one is questioning whether you can be trusted with the tools. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be fine. -- RM 23:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all I was asking. I don't see any other issues. I strongly recommend reviewing various policies and procedures before acting on them (again, due to the low involvement over those 5+ years). That way, you'll become familiar with them again when you need them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are indeed eligible and from what I've seen there's been no evidence of problematic editing or any reason the admin rights should not be returned after the 24 hour wait period. I will caution you that things are significantly different around here compared to 2011, as Nihonjoe points out. I would also remind those who object on numerical grounds that consensus was clear on the matter and if you're not happy you should start a discussion for higher requirements. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they shouldn't be returned. I'm merely pointing out the large changes that have happened in the last 5+ years since Ram-Man lost the tools. I don't see anything in the history that would prevent a return of the tools. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and to go further, I'd also support a higher requirement to return tools. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To what changes do you refer? -- RM 21:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See . At least as far as the official policy, It's not really that big a difference, IMHO. The short version is: be humble and you'll be fine.  The slightly longer version is: if you're clueful and careful and open to constructive criticism you'll be fine.  But it is an interesting question, and one you'd think we'd document somewhere in a more organized fashion.  Off the top of my head, I'd say the biggest thing that's different from 2008-2010 is a stricter attitude about WP:INVOLVED. Err on the side of caution there, I think that's where admins returning after a long absence (and/or even dinosaur admins that never left) run into the most trouble. And I'd say there's perhaps a tougher attitude about rougueishness in general.  And finally don't block non-vandals for the first few months until you've got a feel for the current zeitgeist (did I use that right?). I'd be interested in what other people think are significant changes in expectations for admins over the last, what, 5-10 years, and perhaps we could slap together a page. This isn't the perfect place for that discussion, but since the question was asked here, and this page isn't ANI-long, and I've already tried to take a stab at the answer here, and WT:ADMIN is so useless.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also be interested in a run-down. Forget admin school, we need admin continuous training. :) Protonk (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update is an attempt to collect the significant policy changes in recent years. Like most things, I'm sure it could be improved, but it's a start. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who took a multi-year break, don't worry. It is not that hard to catch up on policy. The important stuff does not change, and the details are always changing. Start slow, listen to what people are saying and you will be golden. Most admins are chosen for their judgement after all. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 14:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable questions have been asked and answered. I currently see no policy-based opposition to restoring this user's mop. As such, I believe it should be restored from 24 hours from Nihonjoe's response. Unless of course, significant policy-based issues are raised between now and then. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please remove; it turns out he only wanted it to give his self-promotional mainspace autobiography +5 armor against deletion. And I apologize to, who (although ultimately handcuffed by policy) was asking the right questions after all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know that 'crats can't do that without an official request from either the user in question or Arbcom. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I was disrupting WP to make a point. Don't tell anyone., I might get in trouble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * is there anything even more pretentious than "emeritus"? asking for a friend Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, I ask for a little civility here. I did not do what I'm being accused of doing. Please see here and here. I have not and will not abuse the tools. I've been asked to take it slowly and carefully and I will do just that. -- RM 18:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag of Confirmed
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.


 * Hello, I come to ask the flag of confirmed because when attempting to perform certain issues, I have to enter the CAPTCHA every time I jump ads. Thanks. -- Alvaro Molina ( Let's Talk ) 04:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct venue. WP:PERM/C would be the correct place. However, since the bar for automatic confirmation is deliberately quite low, the vast majority of requests [there] are denied. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ The user is established on other wikis, see so granting confirmed is no big deal. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WJBscribe, can this be reviewed? The editor has been attempting many inappropriate speedy deletions and giving edit summaries in Spanish. It might be best to withdraw the flag and require the normal wait, given today's damage. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have any effect as Alvaro's editing history goes back a couple of months, so has now passed both thresholds for autoconfirmed <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have any effect as Alvaro's editing history goes back a couple of months, so has now passed both thresholds for autoconfirmed <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, this is not an issue with confirmed. Please engage the user in discussion in the normal way when edits are problematic. It looks like they mean well, just are out of their depth and need a helpful steer. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Approval for User:KharBot
Hello 'crats, no action required, just a note. The bot flag that was required for to complete trials placed by  should be left in place as the task (WP:SIGNPOST publishing and delivery) has successfully completed trials and is now approved. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux  Talk 23:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please remove all usergroups from User:Dravecky
I don't mean to sound insensitive, as a matter of fact, I'm always hurt to see a Wikipedian get flagged as deceased, even those I don't know, but we should probably remove all the permissions this user has globally.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat :Online 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussed at WP:AN, and also backed up with links provided here. Nyttend (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sad news. As is customary, I have removed the permissions from his account. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also blocked his account. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we didn't do that unless they were compromised, per Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that, as it had been common practice in the past. I've unblocked the account. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As this was not even mentioned on WP:CRAT, I have added it. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins / bureaucrat for May 2016
I've processed the inactive administrators queue for this month, with thanks to these users for their past efforts. I've also notified concerning Bureaucrat. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dravecky
User:Dravecky had deceased, per here and here, should remove his/her admin right.  333-blue  13:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin rights were removed 26 April 2016. -- GB fan 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

But there is still a picture on his/her userpage, though.  333-blue  04:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But they aren't an admin. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  05:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just a picture on his userpage - it doesn't grant any permissions. I think the picture should stay as he was an admin at the time he passed away. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree the icon and userbox aren't harming anything, I removed the categorizations (Special:Diff/717218650, Special:Diff/717218956) and the large RIP notice will more than suffice to not confuse anyone passing by. — xaosflux  Talk 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with on this - Obviously if an editor is desysopped or is faking it then yeah it should be removed but in this case the user was an admin until he passed away so personally I believe it should stay (His name isn't on Category:Wikipedia administrators  so there's no harm in it being there.), Just my 2¢. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The rights are removed for security reasons, the icon is harmless. User pages often say things that are no longer true of deceased editors, it does not mean we have to update them. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (Jjaj9393)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjaj9393 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User has never had them. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to play with your board, but the initial revert should have remained, not all this business of responding because "we should". I blocked the account as a ✅ sock. That account shouldn't be taken seriously.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bureaucrat inactive for over 3 years
I recently came across who has the bureaucrat and administrator flags enabled on his account although has not made a single edit in 3 years and 8 months. I wanted to make the bureaucrats aware of this before requesting removal of rights at Steward requests/Permissions. Additionally, please desysop the following users due to 1-year of inactivity:

&mdash; Music1201  talk  06:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Useight comes up time and time again -- he remains active to this day (although as of late he's stuck to his public network alt, ). Also, please don't ever request removal of permissions to the Stewards yourself -- let the 'crats do their job! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, stewards will reject any request not made by a bureaucrat, because the policy (WP:CRAT) requires that a bureaucrat make that request. Please do not do this. --Rschen7754 07:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And the desysopping of inactive users is done near the beginning of each month. Graham 87 08:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thunderboltz has a log entry less than a year old. The other two users are pending, see WP:INACTIVE. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 11:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , I never requested removal of rights to stewards, thats why I posted here. &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * By Crat consensus WP:INACTIVITY policy has not been applied as account specific.Pedro raised it here  and by me in the same discussion here that WP:INACTIVITY clearly states Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped with emphasis is on accounts and  not person and  there is consensus it is not person specific and there was consenus  IP editing is not activity. But Crats have consistently viewed edits or logs made by alternate accounts as activity as mentioned here. It needs a fresh WP:RFC if one wants the Crats to apply the WP:INACTIVITY policy to be applied as  account specific  .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Useight only uses his alternate account, wouldn't he qualify for inactivity regarding bureaucrat actions? It's been 3 years, 8 months since he used that account and Useight's Public Sock doesn't have bureaucratic status, so he hasn't met Bureaucrat activity requirements. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically an alternate account may be considered an extension of the main account used for security or segregation purposes, I believe this is the thinking employed in not exercising inactivity removals on Useight's main account. Their last definitive bureaucrat action was 11 July 2015. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Resysop Request (Gonzo_fan2007)
Hello all, I am back editing and would like to request the tools back. You can find my original RFA here and my resignation here. I have reviewed recent Wikipedia policy and feel comfortable that I will get back into the swing of things. I expect to mostly perform basic clean-up at first as I reacquaint myself with the tools. Please let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  04:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a non-Crat: You gave up the admin bit in 2009, which was over three years ago. I don't think that would qualify for an automatic resysop, but would likely make a new RFA easy after 3-6 months of regular editing.  Either way, welcome back.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Administrators only applies if there is a three-year period of complete inactivity following relinquishment (further explained by Pharaoh below). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. For some reason I thought it required you have had the bit within three years as well.   I don't see a lot of activity before this year, but enough to satisfy the requirements. I stand corrected, and my apologies. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * non crat observation. He is not long term inactive ( without an edit or logged action for three consecutive years) as he has edited every year as per this and do not see anything to say that he left under a cloud as per this ,he only stated that he is retiring not vanishing .Do think he is eligible for a resysop as per policy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being the person who closed the RfC that made the resysop requirements policy, I know that this request meets requirements. Provided they clear the 24 hour waiting period.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat :Online 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Meets the requirements for restoration - voluntary resignation in good standing, and no period of inactivity as long as 3 years. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  20:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Bot flag for UTRSBot

 * Hello 'crats. Following the approval for Bots/Requests for approval/UTRSBot, please review and provide a bot flag for User:UTRSBot operated by User:TParis.  For WP:BAG, —  xaosflux  Talk 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for information, most bot-minded bureaucrats have Bots/Requests for approval/Approved on their watchlist and will see the "NEEDS FLAG" and attend to it accordingly. If we haven't gotten to it within 24 hours after it hits that page, a post here would be fine. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 16:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Striking votes
I thought was going to, but I will ask if you guys take a look at this if you haven't already. Since decision making at RFA is solely your domain, it would be very helpful to have input from several active Crats. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gads. What a hairy mess. I commented over there. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Tavix
Hey Crats, will one of you consider moving 's emphatic support in this RfA to the appropriate section, and maybe move some other stuff from the same thread to the talk page? This is needlessly confusing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you asked him to move it himself? I don't see a need to move the comments if the editor didn't intend for them to specifically be in the Support section (no matter what the comments say). It can still be taken into account when it's closed in a few hours or so. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the conversation--hard to get a straight answer out of him. He was already asked, and there was an answer, but I didn't quite understand it. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He seems to be under some sort of misguided impression that since he heard of the RfA from somewhere, for him to cast a numbered vote would violate the anti-canvassing rule. Personally, unlike the other discussion of bogus or trollish !votes, I don't think that supportive commentary (of reasonable length) in the bottom-of-the-page "comments" section is unduly troublesome. That said, it would be even better if Simon Trew adhered to the conventions of the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nihonjoe on this. As far as hatting or not hatting as Drmies did, I don't see either as being a problem, but the main comment is just that, a comment.  This kind of ties into the "leave it alone" consensus here.  Different thing, but same concept.  People are so edgy at RFA, the participants often more so than the candidate, that I would hesitate before removing or refactoring anything that isn't really a problem.  If a Crat wants to, that is fine, but it seems unnecessary.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Dennis, the main comment is a vote of support. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But he chose to post it as a comment. In the big scheme of things, it isn't hurting anything.  You could tell him it is fine to move it if he wants, but to force it on him doesn't change the outcome and borders on pedantic meddling.  Maybe he doesn't want to for whatever reason but only he should be able to decide that.  We do allow editors to make supportive (or opposing) comments without actually voting, either in the Neutral or Comments area.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me, my hands are very bad so it is difficult for me to fiddle to move things to the right section. I don't often well come here so I don't know the procedure but please excuse me for putting it in the wrong section it is very difficult for me to type. Well I can type OK but I can't kinda do multiple finger stuff and hold shift and drag and things like that. Sorry about that, thank you for doing it for me. I put it in the comment section because I wanted to make it absolutely clear there was no WP:CANVASSing here which I could see could have looked like that since both Tavix and I are regulars at WP:RFD (Quite often disagreeing but always WP:CIVILly). Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, just to be absolutely clear: You would like us to move your comment to the Support section of Tavix' RfA as a formal 'support' vote, correct? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it really even matter? I'm pretty sure we are capable of taking his comment into account when closing the discussion. There's really no reason to basically harass him into moving it. It's not important, urgent, or necessary to move it in this case. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here as an observer, I've been working with SimonTrew in other forums on the site for a while now. It is extremely unlikely that he will follow through on moving his own comment. I did try to explain to him a little while ago about the importance of him moving his own comment if he wanted it to be counted, and he seems to have interpreted it as though if he edits his own comment he will be open to some kind of sanction or harassment, and not long after he blanked his talk page. He acts in good faith, but this one !vote isn't going to decide Tavix's RfA, and so I suggest letting it go. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of the numerical outcome of the RfA it certainly does not matter whether SimonTrew's comment 's moved to the Support section as an official 'support' !vote. And it also seems unlikely that SimonTrew will move his comment himself. (Particularly since he indicated that he has some physical difficulty with typing). However, it would still be good to have a clear and unambiguous Yes/No answer from him regarding whether he wants us to move his comment for him. This way we could officially put this matter to rest. But, in the absence of clear and definitive instructions from SimonTrew, I believe his comments should remain where they are now, in the General comments section. Nsk92 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What is it about Wikipedia that makes it so uniquely adept at making a mountain out of every available molehill? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As Douglas Adams wrote - "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." --kelapstick(on the run) 17:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be something about these landslide RfAs that some editors have a desire for complete clean sheets and every !vote neatly stacked up in favour of the candidate. There is no prize for most !votes and clean sheets are no different in practice to the narrowest percentage pass. We don't need to do anything "officially" at all. It isn't a hanging chad. Looks like another editor pestered off WP. Leaky  Caldron  17:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is something to this. I fear that the more perfect the landslide at RFA, the less tolerant people can be about a borderline oppose vote. We forget that once completed, the RFA itself is irrelevant, as they are scored in a binary fashion, not like an olympic event: either you get the tools or you don't. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One admittedly sort of crazy idea for how to fix this could be to turn this link blue. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the relevance. That page has nothing to do with the number of opposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I get what he is saying, although I don't have an opinion on it at this time. Too complicated for a single paragraph reply.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was that that page (and the 200 version, etc.) is perhaps the only place where RFAs are recorded as a matter of "who did best?" And it does involve the number of opposes, inasmuch as it makes a distinction between "in support" and "in unanimous support." Which arguably contributes to users' desire to turn a nearly-unanimous RFA into a unanimous one (and the converse desire, as of course we saw in the AustralianRupert RFA). — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I gathered exactly that, although I still don't have an opinion on what, if anything, to do about it. Most people will dismiss the fact out right, but I think there is some merit to the concern.  Secret !voting (including secret comments), which are revealed after the RFA is done and the Crats have culled? Kind of sloppy.  There just aren't a lot of obvious answers.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The practice of striking or removing blatant trollish/nonsense oppose !votes (as opposed to merely weakly reasoned one, which are not at all the same thing) has worked just fine for ten-plus years, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly become a problem now (the weirdness last week was not typical of these situations). But I suppose we shouldn't repeat here the whole discussion that is taking place on the other page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting we don't revert/strike obvious troll/vandalism comments. As for the rest,  "That's how we've always done it" really isn't accounting for the fact that consensus changes, as has the entire encyclopedia.  Wikipedia isn't the same encyclopedia it was 10 years ago.  Still, I just want whatever causes the least drama.  And discussion. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins for June 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, with my thanks also. has X! received a second notification regarding the bureaucrat inactivity policy? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, and I have requested the removal of the permission. With thanks to X! for their past service. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The removal has been processed. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Strange request for adminship
A non-etwiki user is requesting adminship over "JavaScript issues" at main discussion of etwiki here: w:et:Vikipeedia:Üldine arutelu, and claims that etwiki JavaScript files are old. I personally consider this request slightly suspicious, because he's not specifying what needs to be changed, what is the new version, and what's the source of the new edition of what he wants to change. What to do? - Mardus /talk 18:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This request can, and should, be handled at Meta-Wiki, and probably by m:Stewards (who have cross-wiki admin access). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Steward requests/Global permissions/2016-04. I honestly don't think it's worth worrying about; nothing bad seems to have happened. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like this guys has been going community to community - I don't read all the languages but seems that some have given him +sysop (see: Special:CentralAuth/Nirmos); pretty sure we don't have to worry about our 'crats doing this. — xaosflux  Talk 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what he went with after his GEI request failed. Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it's for the local communities to decide. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a Steward, but if what he's doing it really helpful (and at least a few communities have agreed to +sysop him), it sounds like a perfect candidate for GEI (not GSysop). ;) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally as a script author, I'd rather be blamed for my scripts failing than have someone else muck about in them, even for as trivial a change as this. Maybe not very "open-source" of me, but if they want to fork, they can fork; while it has my name in the title, I'd rather be responsible for it myself. that is, pretty much the same reaction as I had when tried to request sysop/GEI for actually the same exact thing, I think. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm, WK, scripts in your userspace are already editable by anyone (even IPs). What this user's request concerns is MediaWiki pages (which requires Sysop or GEI). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Salvidrim!: No, they're not. Pages in userspace that end in .js or .css are automatically protected from everyone save admins and the user themself. It would be an unimaginable security liability of literally catastrophic proportions were it otherwise. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Goddamn it. I even double-checked by logging out before saying this to ensure I didn't look like a fool... but somehow I ended up looking at the TALK PAGE of one of your userspace scripts. Sorry! ;) ☺ ·  Salvidumbass!   ·  &#9993;  00:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I supported his request myself, but better judgement prevailed. Considering one of my global scripts broke yesterday I'm wondering if it had to do with this change... Maybe I'll ask him! Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Enwiki is well-patrolled and he can make edit requests for pages here, but I'm wondering, is there a "global edit requests" pages when one could request edits be made to MW/protected pages on smaller wikis without themselves having to obtain GEI/local sysop? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, SRM is probably the best bet for that. But I think he might have already posted there at some point. Oh well, maybe if I get some time next week I'll check in with him and see what still needs to happen regarding this. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break
Please remove my admin bit. I don't need any bits other than extconf/autoconf. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. By order the government, you must remain a sysop. :p—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-10.1ex;color:olive;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat :Online 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who will act as a calming influence and voice of reason!? <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> Need help?  13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, enjoy your bit-break. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to create bureaucrat-appointed admins
Hi crats. Not sure if all of you have seen this. There's currently an idea going around at the village pump which would completely change the role of bureaucrats, by allowing them to appoint admins themselves. There's even some talk of making all current bureaucrats go through another RFB. If you're interested, the thread is here, we'd appreciate your opinions on the matter. Thanks,  Omni Flames ( talk ) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Watching. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: It's not currently an RfC, so right now it is only a discussion of what might go into an RfC (or multiple ones, since there are multiple ideas being discussed there). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins for July 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Permissions procedurally removed. Thank you for your service. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable personal attack
It's been suggested, in the resulting discussion, that the matter I raised at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents should be dealt with by a 'crat, not an admin. Could we have some suitably-flagged eyeballs there, please? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else had already removed the comment in question; I've gone further and removed the rest of the exchange from the RfA - it's not germane to the candidate. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're patrolling RfA: I believe this comment by SchroCat is also an abuse of RfA to cast unsupported aspersions, to make dramaboard threats to discourage other participants' legitimate questions about an oppose rationale, and to bend the page to furtherance of RfA-extraneous, personalized disputation. It should be (along with my response to it, and SchroCat's REVTALK ) administratively removed to the RfA's talk page, as has already been done with Cassianto's similar commentary (to someone else, about the exact same matter, and in the same vein). I could go into the background of this FAC-related factional behavior in more detail/diffs, but this isn't the proper noticeboard for it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not a 'crat but I have received an off-wiki complaint about this. (Why me?) I have hatted that discussion on the RfA so it goes no further. I will say this - let people have their !vote and respect their opinion. SchroCat has opposed, I have supported. SMcCandlish thinks BU Rob13 would be a good admin, I agree. Andy has supported, so have I. We respect each others views. If anything, the lack of BU Rob13 getting involved in this kerfuffle put him in even better standing as an administrator. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The hatting works for me. Thank you. I agree with "let people have their !vote" – I was not suggesting a retraction – but it's SOP to ask for a clear rationale when there isn't one. Sometimes the rationale is nonsense, and sometimes it's eye-opening; I have actually changed my stance in RfAs several times after responses to such requests for clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Edokter
Please remove my administrator status. 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a note I feel should be posted, Are you positive ? as reinstatement might be .   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, who is going to maintain the CSS sheets from here on now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus, in short "the community" - this may be a gap but it is up to the community to fill, not our 'crats; it may come to more edit requests that need to be reviewed as well. — xaosflux  Talk 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sure, and I shall not ask for reinstatement.  18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Given the ongoing conversation and multiple established editors and admins bringing up the possibility of asking Arbcom for a desysop, I think this resignation is definitely under a cloud. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned that I was considering filing an Arbcom desysop case, I received several emails indicating that multiple editors, most of them administrators, would support and give evidence in such a case. I was in the process of putting together a draft using vim to post in my userspace when I saw this. If it turns out that there is a consensus that this resignation was not under a cloud, I will continue drafting the case, but otherwise I intend to drop the stick. On a personal note, I would like to once again say that an Arbcom case was always my reluctant second choice. I would very much have preferred a commitment to cease the behavior that I was starting to document. If Edokter ever chooses to make that commitment and then file an RfA, I would vote yes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ and noted here as probably "under a cloud". ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Cloud--I'm not sure. Was there an action that caused cloudage, or merely an ill-conceived and angry threat that an action might be taken? Just asking. I'm not a weatherperson. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't tool usage, but the edit warring to force the closure of an MfD for a tool he wrote, coupled with threatening to block anyone who tried to reopen the community discussion, is certainly "controversial circumstances". Tool usage is a bright line, but not the only line. The purpose of WP:CLOUD is to establish "circumstances where there may be grounds to believe this was done rather than face imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction over possible inappropriate conduct or activity of theirs". One of the explicit examples is to avoid a proposed Arbcom case, and Guy Macon was proposing an Arbcom case. I think the existence of weather is well established. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I most certainly believe there was an action that caused "cloudage"—namely, the threatened use of the block button to quash any inconveniences and forcefully impose one's will, despite being clearly involved in the issue. Such misuse of the admin position should have no place here, and it was clearly the intense backlash that precipitated the resignation and retirement. Therefore, it is plain that Edokter handed in his tools under a cloud. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 04:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Moderator proposal

 * Moderators/Proposal

There is currently a request for comment open to add a new user-right package with a set of content-related admin tools (NOT block or protect), requested through RfA-like process. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 01:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Rob's RFA
Can some crat please close Rob's Rfa? It's pending closure and would be great if the poor chap's game of thrones trial by fire is closed on a positive note at the soonest. Lourdes —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 03:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz

 * Support: Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
 * Not voting: DeltaQuad, Guerillero, Keilana, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Unflagged bot XLinkBot
— xaosflux  Talk 11:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No longer required rights may be removed from group 'bureaucrat'
Hello,

Please see Village pump (technical) and T140550. Thanks. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (MikeLynch)
Hi there, I'd requested a de-sysop about a year and a half ago, and now that I'll be editing more frequently, I'd like to ask for me to be resysopped.

Thanks! - MikeLynch (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems fine to me. We'll need to wait 24 hrs for other crats to review per WP:RESYSOP. Delighted to have you back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks, glad to be back. MikeLynch (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

MadmanBot and "Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity"
Does anyone here take responsibility for User:MadmanBot and its erroneous messages regarding removing admin permissions?

The latest email: "Further to a previous email, your administrator permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity before 1 Aug 2016. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators for further details.

If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way.

We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

This message has been sent by MadmanBot on behalf of the English Wikipedia bureaucrats. Please report any errors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MadmanBot."

The "please report any errors" link redirects to User talk:Madman. Madman has made three edits since the fall of 2015 and no edits in the last month, so it seems unlikely that there is a lot of support going on there.

I received the first suspension notification on July 1st, when my last edit had been on July 5th of the previous year; close to but not actually inactive for a year. I had attempted repeatedly to recover my account through the email password recovery in the interim and failed, and so I'd been editing as an IP. The email recovery still doesn't work as far as I know, but yesterday I was somehow able to recover it through the username method. Anyway, made a couple edits yesterday to verify everything was working and assumed I would be in the clear.

Not so, it seems, since I received the above email today.

So, in short, what is up with that? I've been an admin for 12 years. I haven't used admin powers much recently, I admit, but then I've also never ever had a complaint against me for using them. Not an unreasonable balance. Thanks for your help. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 07:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Several points there:


 * 1) It's not good that a bot operator is absent and not able to respond to issues raised. We need to address that. The speed of Madman's response easily deals with this --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) It seems totally appropriate for a warning of impending inactivity to be sent out before you reach the trigger point. That's the reason for the warning.
 * 3) If you're now active again, you won't be desysopped, but thanks for raising point one.
 * 4) Re your last paragraph, it's not personal. The community decided some time ago to desysop inactive admins. Read WP:RESYSOP - it's purely administrative and can be overturned.
 * Cheers
 * --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shame the source code isn't available for that bot task - it may be worth, should return any time soon, asking if we could have the source popped up on a public GitHub repo (with a number of developers granted access), so in the future issues like this can be rectified --  samtar talk or stalk 09:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have dropped a line by email and asked him to join this conversation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this. I may not be editing much recently, but I do see my talk page, so let's not refer to me as an "absent" bot operator, if you please. v/r, &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 12:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The e-mail was not in error. If you did not return to editing by August 1st, then as of August 1st you would have been a year inactive (with last edit July 5th). I know the date math isn't exactly intuitive (I've been over it enough times), but it's correct. v/r, &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 12:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One issue I do see is that the inactive list is e-mailed at 00:00 UTC and then updated at 01:00 UTC; if someone returned to editing within the last twenty-four hours (as you did), that may not be reflected immediately. I'll switch those two crontab entries and consider this issue resolved. v/r, &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">madman 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it, Dweller and Madman. I'll consider the issue closed -- unless I get another email, ha ha. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 15:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins for August 2016
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham 87 10:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ all six. Thanks, Graham87, for bringing them here and thank you to all six for their work. I feel bad about removing the adminship from people who were admins before I created my account but...it has to be done. :( Acalamari 12:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request Nandesuka
Well, I have been somewhat inactive, but I'm not gone yet!

Thanks, Nandesuka (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back there is a standard hold period for this action of 24 hours for review and comment. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 01:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Nandesuka (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request A Train
Could I have my mop back? I want to get stuck into the project again and help out with backlogs.

Grazie Mille,  A  Train ''talk 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Based purely on their activity, they would be eligible as their absence period between 2012-2014 does not amount to three years. Not seeing any clouds in their talk page history, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No clouds visible on my radar. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agree there are no clouds and 24 hours has elapsed.  MBisanz  talk 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks all. :) It's good to be home.  A  Train ''talk 13:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regular service has resumed. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Desysop request (CT Cooper)


Hello, I'm no longer actively editing the English Wikipedia so I hereby request that I have my sysop flag be removed. If I return to active editing at some point in the future I'll likely request the flag be restored via this noticeboard as per policy. Many thanks in advance. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for your service. — xaosflux  Talk 18:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admin
Hi, I noticed User:7 hasn't logged any actions since 25 August 2015, and that MadmanBot has not issued them any notifications about being desysopped due to inactivity. Am I missing something? Or maybe it's a bug with the bot? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  04:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact none of the admins listed at Inactive_administrators appear to have received a talk page message <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the issue. I've dropped Madman a note. Given how late in the month it is, it's probably easiest just to include them in next month's notifications once the bot is fixed. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That also happened with . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Uw-ublock
This template, which was created ages ago, specifies the following unblock procedure of a user with an unacceptable name but with non-empty positive contribution: (1) post the template and get unblocked; (2) request a rename; (3) get renamed. It made sense when renaming was still done by crats, and obviously a blocked user could not file a rename request. However, now the rename is done by stewards, and a user who is only blocked on one project can perfectly request a rename on Meta. The unblock as the first step is thus not necessary. Should we update the text of the template advising the user go to Meta and request a rename first?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems the first suggestion should be WP:UTRS, then .  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 19:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that some global renamers ( and ) are local administrators, so they can process the rename as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to keep it the way it is, for a few reasons. The new name has to be compatible with en.wiki rules and meta Stewards won't be able to judge that, so we're likely to have renames happening that are still not acceptable (it's possibly only around 50% of the cases I see where the first request is acceptable). Renames add a big load to the server as it has to reassign authorship to all the editor's edits (or something like that) on all Wikipedias under unified login, so its use should be minimized as far as possible. The rename software is actually a bit fragile too - we frequently have problems with stuck renames showing up on the renamer mailing list, and we try to keep it to only one queued at a time. Partly for the server load reason, repeated renames can easily be declined - there is the reasonable expectation that the user gets their request right. So overall I think we really need to make sure we have an acceptable new name before we do the rename, and that really needs admin approval at WP:RFU first. Also, with at least two three of us active at WP:RFU also able to rename (Bish too), the horrible two-step procedure isn't needed if we can do it all here, and I'm sure that helps newbies. But I do think there is a much better procedural improvement we can make - now that Global Rename is a right that can be allocated, how about all admins who work at WP:RFU request the right? Roll up and join the circus here! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bit please


Only doing a couple edits a day, using my alt account mainly, but the bit would have been handy a couple of times for the editing tools, so I'm requesting it back after 3 months Special:Diff/724158128. I know you have to wait 24 hours, etc., no rush, I have no big plans. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a shady character... We'd better keep our eyes on him!! [winky face] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No concerns. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This made me smile!!!-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅  Maxim (talk)  14:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Break
Howdy, I will be taking a break for at least a few months to focus on school and would like to have my admin bit removed during this break. Thanks, Nakon  18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 22:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Report of misuse of administrator tools by Bbb23
I am reporting the following incident (this venue is used given the nature of the report):

I am reporting Bbb23 for misusing his administrator tools, specifically, blocking an user in personal retaliation and breaking WP:INVOLVED. User Bbb23 has blocked an user (myself) who filled a request for review of a hasty and inapproriate closure made by him (Special:Diff/738038377).

Background
Originally I filled a report against another editor (who is not involved with this report). Neutrality misclosed this report on the grounds that it was a “content dispute”. This original report was not about a content dispute but about a breach of WP:local consensus by an editor who insisted in settling this dispute by the local consensus reached in a wikiproject. I re-opened my report by removing the closure templates and Neutrality re-added the templates and responded in my talk page (diff). His advice was (emphasis of the relevant part added): “If you wish to renew discussion or appeal a closure, the best thing to do is to take it up with the closing administrator, or to start a new discussion in the proper place. ”. I chose to follow his advice.

I open a new discussion. Bbb23 closed it—with no justification—dismissing it off-hand on the grounds that “This is the second similar topic initiated here by the OP.”. Bbb23 did not pay any attention that I was contesting the previous closure or else he had chosen to ignore this point.

I contact Bbb23 asking for justification. He was completely unwilling to give any explanation, dismissing my complaint with only (quoted from him) “My closure stands” (diff of my edit and his response).

I follow the protocol outlined in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, which says:

"All discussion closures are subject to review. [...] If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard."

I explicitly request a review of the previous closure by Bbb23. GB fan closed it again on the misunderstanding that it is a “content dispute”. Note that in this request for review, I explicitly addressed this and explained why it does not qualify as a content dispute.

'''In retaliation for having challenging his closure, Bbb23 blocks me for 36 hours. Given that he was involved because he was the one to make the closure that I disputed, this is in blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED, according to which''' (quoting, emphasis added):

"In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Involved administrators:
The following administrators are involved in this issue: Bbb23 (subject of this report), Neutrality (hasty closure of my original report), GB fan (hasty closure of my request for review), Doc James (subject of my report). Per WP:INVOLVED, these administrators must not make use of their administrative tools in this discussion.

Additional
Administrators are here to serve the Wikipedia community, not to serve themselves from the Wikipedia community. Bbb23 has blatantly broken WP:INVOLVED and has showed himself not only unwilling to address complaints at his administrator actions, but actively retaliates against those who criticize his actions making abuse of his administrative tools.

I request that:


 * 1) Bbb23 is given a warning for misuse of administrator tools and this is established as precedent of his misconduct to be taken into account in case that he reoffends in misuse of administrator tools. Should a similar situation arise again, removal of administrator tools is probably the only effective way to deal with this misuse.
 * 2) If this discussion is to be formally closed, at least 4 days are allowed for input from the Wikipedia community in general and proper deliberation and such a closure is performed by an user who is a bureaucrat in this wiki.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC).
 * Please don't add Rfcs on such issues. This is not the place to post this message. ANI is the appropriate place. Finally, Bbb23 is not an involved admin. He can take administrative action on you repeatedly. ("One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role..." per policy) Bbb23 has only taken administrative action on your issue multiple times, whether it was closing your discussion or blocking you. Good form may recommend that another administrator reviews your subsequent posts, however, GBFan has done that already. Please focus on whatever original issue you wished to resolve. Posting posts like this will take you off tangentially, and absolutely nowhere. Lourdes  02:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue plus no misuse of tools. Mario Castelán Castro was specifically warned by if he continued to be disruptive he was risking a block. Mario opened a third ANI thread and was blocked. Simple. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And now almost immediately after their block expires they open up the thread here? Seems...unwise. Perhaps this should be closed before more damage is done? --Majora (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is not a venue to resolve your dispute. Please see the Dispute resolution policy that outlines the steps to take to work though a dispute with other editors.  While us bureaucrats are technically capable of removing administrative permissions, we are not part of normal dispute resolution process and the community has only entrusted us to remove this type of access in very specific situations.  As shown in the dispute policy, if you are at an impasse in a dispute you may request arbitration.  The arbitration committee is the last resort in dispute resolution and has been entrusted by the community to issue sanctions to other editors. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Resign as sysop MGA73
Hi.

I have been working om images on Commons and an lot of wikis for years. But I'm no longer active. So I no longer need the sysop rights on en-wikipedia.

So if you could pls. remove my sysop rights. Or do I need to ask on Meta?

Thank you all! It has been great :-)

--MGA73 (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for your service, MGA73. :) Acalamari 12:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Seemingly inactive accounts in researcher user group
Hi. Someone pointed out to me recently that a number of researcher accounts are seemingly inactive. Is auditing these accounts for need within the purview of the local bureaucrats or is this something to contact the Wikimedia (Foundation?) Research Committee about? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are managed by WMF, I last asked about them in October 2014 to m:User:Jalexander-WMF, his talk page would likely be the best first step to follow up on this. — xaosflux  Talk 02:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's no just a policy thing - we don't have the technical ability to add/remove researcher as part of the +bureaucrat rights. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record I'll followup with everyone who currently holds it (many of which received permission before I was generally overseeing user rights) and check what's needed. Jalexander--WMF 16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Inactive administrators/2016
The following administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity in excess of 12 months: Thank you all for your service. — xaosflux  Talk 00:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofBangladesh
Please see User talk:HistoryofBangladesh. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Desysop motion
Could a Crat action this at their earliest convince. Thanks. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 10:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Desysop request
Hi 'Crats. Please remove my sysop bit per the prolonged and inevitable conclusion at the current The Rambling Man case at Arbcom. It's very clear that the "committee" and many users no longer wish for me to hold the tool, and I'm duty-bound to relinquish it, particularly as the case is dragging on and on. I don't want this to become a speech, far from it, but I'd like to place on record my complete and unwavering support for the effort that a handful of decent and hard-working admins who put up with daily insult and ongoing belittlement for striving to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. For me, I loved it, but for eleven years I've edited Wikipedia as an editor; the admin thing was just a tool to be employed, rarely, to protect Wikipedia. My best to all of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pity. I hope you'll stay around, we need your work on keeping the main page free from errors and your work on articles is very appreciated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I will indeed. And I will be a reformed character.  Thanks for your comment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

✅ This isn't the forum or the right time for my opinion on this, but I've never clicked a button on Wikipedia with so much regret. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers D. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of advanced permissions – community comments
The Arbitration Committee is seeking community feedback on a proposal to modify the ArbCom procedure on Removal of permissions. Your comments are welcome at the motion page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at : '''Arbitration/Requests/Motions
 * I'm not clear on how this is anything beyond a formalization of the general consensus that we would act in an emergency severe enough that nobody would question the need (which had always been my assumption, though I've never happened to be the one online who needed to make that call). Pakaran 23:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My analysis might help you figure out exactly what is/isn't changing. I'd be happy to answer further questions on what you think is changing. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User who changed account name is still using older account
Hey all, I hope this is the right place for this discussion. If not, please educate me. Circa 22 March 2013, User requested a name change to  as  detailed here. The change was made, the Kechanna user and talk pages were redirected to the Keshava G N user space. Keshava G N made one or two edits after that, but might have accidentally recreated Kechanna, as they have been editing from this account since about 26 March 2013. What to do? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed my name from Pharmboy to Dennis Brown, and then reclaimed the old name as an alternate, declared of course, so reclaiming the old name isn't a violation. He hasn't edited in a few years, I don't know that we need to do anything.  He kind of has them linked via a redirect.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, the account he's been using as recently as today (Kechanna) is redirecting to the account he decided he didn't want to use. So if users have to warn him about some behavioral issue, they'll leave a message on a defunct account's talk page. Yes, I could remove the redirects and that would solve one problem, but I just wasn't sure if anything needed to be done to merge the account histories or something. I suppose not, based on what you've said. But would we have to declare the alternate account for him on his user pages? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would chime in here to say that account merging isn't possible at this time. Nor will it be anytime soon. The process is bugged and nobody is working on it. --Majora (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would just be bold and make the changes, then tell him, telling him how you understand it was by accident, but we require it this way, point to WP:sock as a polite justification, tip your hat and go on. He probably forgot he changed his name, and has no interest in the finer points of that particular policy since he isn't doing anything wrong, and I don't blame him. As long as he isn't intentionally doing anything wrong, I don't see a need to do anything else. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okeedoke. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the Kechanna user page and left the user a note on the Kechanna Talk page with an explanation. I agree that the person doesn't appear to be doing anything abusive, but it is puzzling, and it's a bit more disturbing that Kechanna left barnstars on the Keshava G N's Talk page, including an administrator barnstar.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks B. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just a new user. Like an editor wrote above, just educate him on the good form of things. I got my name changed too, and have reclaimed my previous account, and have redirected the same. But ya, I don't intend using the old account (unless I start doing frequent AWB edits and want to isolate those to a separate account). Lourdes  03:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Inactive_administrators/2016
The following administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity in excess of 12 months: Thank you all for your service. — xaosflux  Talk 02:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hi,

TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators, crats, CU, and OS. I highly recommend you enable this from Special:Preferences - it provides an extra layer of security besides passwords. You can use an app on your phone like Google Authenticator to manage the codes, and if you don't have a smart phone, there are other alternatives that run on laptops. Please be careful and write down the scratch codes though - if you get locked out of your account because you lose your 2fa, it may not be possible to recover your account. I would appreciate if others could help disseminate this information to other admins/crats/CU/OS. I'll work on creating some documentation about this once I'm no longer scrambling. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied from WP:AN. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please watch
Dont have a lot of time about to log off but User:AlisonW just changed Main Page protection. Could be a mistake but please watch and desysop if repeats and contacnt Steward too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked, emergency desysop requested.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Globally locked. --Rschen7754 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't do the locking, but I just reported it --Rschen7754 18:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As Special:CentralAuth/AlisonW account is globally locked, emergency sysop is not required (also locally unblocked so there is nothing left for us to do if/when this is resolved globally). — xaosflux  Talk 18:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent compromised accounts
Just a request to all of you bureaucrats to monitor this page and the mailing list frequently: we've had at least two admin accounts compromised in the last day (Jimbo himself, and Legoktm in the last few minutes, plus a staff account on foundation:), so the faster you folks can respond to emergencies the better. Stewards were around for both of these, but speedy emergency desysop assistance will be helpful if they're not around, lest we get into Robdurbar again. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd highly recommend the Stewards mailing list or IRC channel be contacted first before posting here: apart from the fact that bureaucrats are not generally "highly available", Stewards can globally lock whereas bureaucrats can only locally desysop. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, but it can't hurt to come to both. After finding that Legoktm had been compromised, I spent a good while attempting to find a steward; if I'd thought to come here, I could have left a quick request and then gone off for the stewards without having to wonder if anyone would notice before the hacker unblocked the account.  Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with xeno - a local desysop is pointless when the compromised account is doing damage at some other project. As for contacting Stewards, I've found that at least one of them is usually available on . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can post here, but I'd recommend first mailing the Stewards. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But at least the local desysop prevents the disruptive user from self-unblocking himself locally, and it takes almost no time. Until well after the steward had handled Legoktm's account, I was unaware that it had been used disruptively at any other site.  Coming here and leaving a note is instantaneous, but I virtually never communicate with the stewards, so contacting the stewards first requires me to think about finding them on Meta, then assumes that I remember that they have a mailing list and IRC (I forgot both of those today) or assumes that I go through their contributions to find one of them that's active.  Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I'll try to keep a closer watch on BN today. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is going into #wikimedia-stewards and typing in !steward. Some folks might be watching the OTRS queue, but not all of them (and there may be a few stewards who don't have access to that). Also for what it's worth, a block may not necessarily prevent CU actions. --Rschen7754 17:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope there will be some kind of retrospective on this. To learn lessons going forward we need to know, if possible, how the accounts were compromised. Were weak passwords cracked from leaked hashes, have admins been targeted with malware, is there a MediaWiki bug? If the former, how strong were the passwords? BethNaught (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , the discussion for this should belong at AN/ANI or even at the Foundation itself. BN is a dead place for this to gain traction. Lourdes  19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)