Hello, Wikipedia's bureaucrats,
I didn't think I'd be back here so soon but there has been a bit of a kerfuffle over my RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz) regarding the vote count. The archived RfA says 200 support votes but some editors say that one or more support votes were disallowed because they came from sockpuppets. To be honest, I haven't gone through the entire crat discussion to see if this is true and have not seen a diff verifying this to be the case.
What I'm asking is for a simple verification of what your understanding is of the final disposition of this candidacy. If it was 198 or 199 supports, that's fine but could the RfA be corrected to reflect this fact? If there were just suspicions of sock-puppetry occurring but no votes were thrown out, could you verify that fact instead?
I have no desire to stir up what ended up being a controversial adminship discussion but the vote total seems to be the subject of dispute and so I would like the archived RfA page to reflect what exists on other pages (like Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX). Thank you for taking a moment to clarify this matter, it's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Most productive solution: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfA was closed with 200 support votes. At the bottom you can see "Please don't modify it". There was indeed one sockpuppet that was blocked after the scheduled end of the RfA (User:Spaghetti07205), but now the RfA stands as is. WP:SOCKSTRIKE is used to get a clearer view of on-going discussions, it's not usually used in closed/archived ones. Kraxler (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler above is correct - there were 200 supports at the time when WJBscribe sent your RfA to a bureaucrat chat. It doesn't matter that the sock was blocked, for that occurred after WJBscribe's edit - you had 200 in support and trying to argue otherwise is silly and a waste of time (and yes, you can be included on WP:RFX200). Acalamari 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So, the answer is yes but no? ;-) I care less about the exact total than settling a minor editing dispute so thank you, Kraxler and Acalamari. I gather now that if sockpuppets are discovered, the votes are removed prior to the RfA closing and archived pages are not altered later.

I hope this puts the matter to rest but on Wikipedia, one never knows. As for Floquenbeam's suggestion, I'll leave that MfD to others to file! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How truly pathetic to be so desperate to be included on a list. The page itself clearly states "ideally excluding sock puppets" but if anyone is so keen to be included on a list to which they are not entitled then so be it. The sock puppet was confirmed before the promotion was decided. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: The tone of this comment from you is not helpful. Please refrain from commenting if you cannot be more productive. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 05:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I do consider myself to be productive - but in the area of content which I can see is of no importance here. I have no intention of wasting further time or energy on this nonsense. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Thanks! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 05:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"so I think you'd be well justified in removal" SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz: I doubt you will get a definitive answer to your question from the bureaucrats, as we only evaluate RfAs for the existence of a consensus to promote a user to administrator, not to determine whether it should be included in a list such as the one you mention. I would suggest focussing your attention somewhere more productive rather than thinking about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 05:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Deskana:, I had already moved on and had stopped thinking about this until I was pinged. It was a minor editing dispute and since it involved my RfA, I sought guidance from the bureaucrats who were responsible for its closure. I don't understand Phil's interest in the matter. I considered my request addressed yesterday and am surprised to find it still the subject of discussion. I consider the matter closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• The result of an RfA should officially be recorded as what it was when the Bureaucrats made the decision to accept or archive the request. To do otherwise may give the impression that the request was accepted or rejected based on a percentage of supports or opposes beyond the usual thresholds. Socks may not be uncovered for months or even years afterwards. And too, the arguments of editors later found to be sockpuppets can be persuasive in their advocacy. So the fact is that the opinions of socks are counted, and should be recorded, as imperfect as that may be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

The following admins are due for procedural revocation of sysop rights:

• Melesse (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• ERcheck (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Jredmond (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Pablo-flores (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• David Newton (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Tristanb (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• SCZenz (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Radiant! (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Thanks to all of them for their service. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks to all for their service. Worm^TT(talk) 07:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07 and Worm That Turned: Tristanb shouldn't have been on this list because of the edits he made yesterday. Graham87 12:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have restored the rights. WJBscribe (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Aaaah! Thanks Graham, I hadn't spotted that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Missed that! Kharkiv07 (T) 14:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Update Missed crats 1 October 2015 grace period is over ? [1] and this remove adminship from Vanish Rkitko per [2] deletion of Talk with disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.47.244 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats cannot remove Bureaucrat user-right, only add it. Requests need to be made to stewards (I think!). As for Rkitko, I am restoring that talk page, but until he has been away for 1 year, or unless he requests removal of sysop right, it should remain under current rules. Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We're awaiting technical support for the bureaucrat activity table and then activity requirement notices will be sent. So the grace period is still ongoing. –xeno^talk 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Resysoping/Un-desysoping: User:El_C

Greetings, everyone. A routine bot-post on my talk page has brought to my attention changes in the resysoping policy. I know I sound like a broken record, but I continue to make read-only use of my admin flag throughout my research; and broken record'ly also, returning in any capacity is never precluded.

^{...So, since having taken my extended (-extended) sabbatical here, every annually-or-so, I would write some version of the above, and usually within less than a day or so, a bureaucrat would automatically either, if late resysop, or if early, un-desysop, me. Well, this time I'm early! What I'm getting at is: if the most recent changes to the resysop policy somehow resulted in effectively removing this (auto-confirm) flexibility from bureaucrats' discretion, please let me know. Undiplomatically put: I'm more than happy to perform a few admin maintenance tasks if it is deemed necessary, but note that that would be a symbolic gesture only, because if given a choice, my priority at this time, is to spend that time doing research (to make clear, a motivation which entirely born of my own present-circumstances and is in no way a comment on anything here whatsoever).}

Anyway, as always (and longwindedly, for once!), much, much love to all my friends and colleagues, El_C 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. The bot has noted your activity and removed you from its inactive list. WJBscribe (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Nice to see you. El_C 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will not be a part of a project that Reguyla is welcome to participate in. Please desysop me, I am leaving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This will only make things worse. HighInBC 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please wait. I will be asking why I should not be blocking Reguyla for immediately breaking his unblock conditions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sad to see another admin turn in their bit. I hope you reconsider, Flo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Conscientious objection. –xeno^talk 18:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have no idea what's going on here, but with only about 250 active admins, we can't afford to lose a good one. Can we hold off on this in case it can be sorted out? Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The short description is that User:Reguyla has been unblocked, apparently from what I can tell without prior notice of Floquenbeam, who seems to have issued the last block on that account, and Floquenbeam, well, objects. And, although I am not at all sure my word should count for much here, I would very sincerely urge the bureaucrats involved to put off any action on this request, at least for a few days. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reguyla has been unblocked without any community discussion or consensus by an admin who !voted to overturn his ban in the last quite comprehensive community discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not a child; I'm capable of deciding whether or not I want the sysop bit. Please do me that final courtesy, at least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support based on the above repeated comment by the filer of this request. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done reluctantly. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, 28bytes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely f'ing gutted. Floq - please email me if you have time. Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

We lost a good admin over this? Meanwhile, back at Reguyla's block log:

• 19:36, 5 October 2015 NeilN blocked Reguyla with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing)
• 07:27, 5 October 2015 Worm That Turned unblocked Reguyla (unblocked with restrictions - [3])

No idea of the merits, but that unblock only lasted 12 hours and 9 minutes before there was some kind of problem. John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, hopefully the emerging consensus on AN to indef and ban Kumioko/Reguyla (after the failed attempt to unblock with strict conditions) will make you rethink your decision. I'm sure Worm That Turned would feel infinitely sorry that their mostly unilateral and possibly mistaken decision (albeit made with good intentions) has lead to your departure from the administrative side of the project. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Given this edit, Flo says he is gone whether or not Kumioko is blocked or unblocked. We've lost too many admins over the last 12 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for purposes of absolute clarification, am I right in understanding that if and when (please, let it be when) Floquenbeam returns he can have his admin privileges restored at request? John Carter (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Yes, provided he asks for the restoration of rights and this happens within three years. He did not resign under a cloud, AFAIK.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He did not. NE Ent 01:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a bureaucrat, but I completely agree...no clouds in sight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just... wow. In an instant, another amazing administrator is abruptly gone. You'll be missed, man. :( DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen you around and you've been nothing but a positive asset, but who is Reguyla?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• You might know one of his previous user names, User:Kumioko, better. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

...aaaand Reguyla immediately violated the restrictions he voluntarily agreed to and was re-blocked, this time for a month. See User talk:Reguyla. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Aww, man, this displeases me greatly. I've been on the fence on Kumi's situation for some time now. This unblock was unexpected, but the quick reblock, sadly, wasn't. Please reconsider. You're more valuable to the community as an admin than an observer standing on the sidelines. Anyway, whatever your decision, I wish you the best. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, can we please take the Reguyla situation to either ANI or ArbCom, and can everybody please email Floquenbeam to let him know Reguyla is blocked and that the situation is being handled and sanctioned. After losing Malik Shabazz so recently, I can't bear to see another of our very best admins depart in a similar mix-up. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_Reguyla_.28Kumioko.29_reblock (and the subsequent CBAN proposal). Floq is well aware of what is hapepning. This thread should be closed asit's just attracting more flies than anything else. Hasteur (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Not even going over there - I've said my piece - but thanks for the link. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Just leaving a note here (so that this is archived along with the desysop request) that I've deactivated Floq's UTRS account. It can be reactivated by myself or another tooladmin at the click of a button if Floq is ever resysopped. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – There is an ongoing RFC: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. –xeno^talk 15:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO, this would be a good time to discuss whether

1. "weight of argument" should be used or not used in closing RfAs.
2. Whether arguments which are related to information which we are officially barred from asking as questions of editors should be given weight or no weight in an RfA discussion (I understand age, gender, gender preference, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc. are topics which one may not reasonably ask of an editor - correct me if I am wrong).
3. whether consideration should be given to specifically assigning greater or lesser weight where an RfA has been discussed on sites outside the direct purview of Wikipedia (including IRC discussions, blog discussions etc.).

This appears to be almost the "perfect storm" for such a case as all three elements I suggest should be discussed did appear to be salient to this RfA. Collect (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope nobody minds my weighing in as a non-crat and frequent RFA opposer. Bureaucrats shouldn't weight arguments on either side unless an RFA is in that community-accepted 70-75% discretionary range. Outside that, oppose rationales should not be expected to be particularly comprehensive or forceful. Unfortunately, certain 'crats like WJBScribe (see his post in the topic above) categorically reject this premise, and as a result opposers sometimes err toward being loquacious assholes so their opposes will fully count, which results in RFA being the unpleasant gauntlet we all know and love. Townlake (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RFA was not meant to be a straight vote, no? And RFAs have passed at under 70%. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

They have. The statement on WP:RFA is "Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to bureaucratic discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion." Worm^TT(talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I read your position as "never assign weight even if the number of improper votes is greater than the number to effect a different result." In the case at hand, I read about 40% of the "opposes" (24/58) as being specifically and primarily directed at age, where there is no basis for saying that we can demand "proof of age" for an admin any more than we can ask "what gender are you?" and "what is your education level?" or "are you gay?" or the like. So on that basis, I think I would demur with your response. Of course, the community absolutely can formally impose age limits on admins, but I do not find any record of such a proposal gaining past approbation. Collect (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (note: Anyone of any age may edit articles or register. Wikipedia does not even require that users disclose their age when registering! seems apropos here. Coppa states: (1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection WMF sets a minimum age for Arbs on the basis of confidential materials - not on the basis of judgement ) Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we put aside the age question for a second I am left with one question: "Is it reasonable for people to oppose someone based on private information that was improperly leaked which had nothing to do with behavioural issues, and is it reasonable to give such an oppose significant weight?"

This is a case where private information was leaked about the candidate. This information did not in any way reflect poor judgement from the candidate, just their private circumstances(private info like age, gender, nationality, religion etc). Opinions on age aside, this information poisoned this RfA and I think it should have been taken into account, just like sock puppetry or canvassing would be taken into account.

This candidate had their private info leaked and then used against them. Then when it was time to determine consensus these opinions based on private info were seemingly given significant weight.

I think we have failed this wikipedian in more than one way at this RfA. HighInBC 14:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we had improperly leaked information that would be a valid concern, but when the user themselves revealed that information I don't think we can call it improperly leaked. -- GB fan 19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case the information was oversighted. HighInBC 21:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the original edits were, but the comment that was found and mentioned in the !vote in the RFA was put in place before the disclosure was oversighted. So who improperly leaked the info? -- GB fan 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is information that was oversighted years ago. HighInBC 14:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what was oversighted and when. I also know what wasn't oversighted and when it was introduced. The timeline is important. The information was introduced by TAP (under a different username). The comment that was introduced into the RFA to support their age was made on the old user talk page. Finally the original disclosure was oversighted. The comment should have been oversighted at the time also but it was missed. What I would like to know is who you think improperly leaked the info? -- GB fan 17:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not attempting to lay blame or suggest that any editor acted inappropriately, that is a much murkier issue. My concerns is that the information was private information and that private information should not be a valid basis for an argument against a person. The fact that one mention of their age was oversighted demonstrates that it was a privacy issue. The fact that a repetition of the information on a talk page was not oversighted does not make it cease to be private information. HighInBC 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood the post above where you said "private information that was improperly leaked" and thought you were saying someone leaked information that was private. Thank you for clarifying what you were talking about. -- GB fan 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in hindsight it was a poor choice of words. HighInBC 23:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the RfA discussion page, if the Request for Adminship process is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote, then arguments should not be weighed on individual opinions in order to alter how they are counted, as this is still a voting process. Whether or not a given argument has consensus support of the community should be evaluated, and the relative weight of each argument determined. In other words, lay out the pros and cons, determine by consensus the relative importance of each, and then see if the advantages outweigh the negatives. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• As a relatively newer bureaucrat, I've been seeking some clarification as to exactly what the community understands our role in the RfA process to be and what specific mandates we have been given in the past. Remember, the bureaucrat's authority at RfA is entirely dependent on the Wikipedia:Administrators policy. If the community wishes bureaucrats to take a more involved role in "policing" RfA (rather than determining the consensus result), it should be explicitly written in to Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator so there is some policy-based reason for our acts. The RfA process also has no separate policy or guideline surrounding it, it is perhaps time to implement one. –xeno^talk 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hopefully not. Traditionally the bureaucrats have been perceived and respected as low drama, no drama, boring -- well, bureaucrats -- who faithfully execute the will of the community / arbcom without letting their personal opinions (rarely can we tell if they actually have any) interfere with their dedication. This is important as these are the folks with the hands on the sysop / desysop switch. Policing Rfas will always be a gray area quagmire, and asking the BN community to get sucked into that will inevitably tarnish that reputation. NE Ent 02:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If this is the feeling of the wider community, then bureaucrats are the judges, not the referees, of the boxing match that is RFA and the community needs to be reminded that they should provide the referees so the bureaucrats can remain impartial as judges. –xeno^talk 11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Xeno the admin policy already says the RfA is determined by consensus and not a vote. The consensus policy says that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

While practice may differ from policy, the actual wording of policy does require that the arguments given on various sides of the issue have their quality ascertained through the lens of policy. I don't think this is what is being done though. If AfDs were closed like RfAs then we would count I like it votes with equal weight as strong policy based reasoning. HighInBC 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ever, or in a specific case? –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant in general. I don't take issue with this recent close, it was well within the realm of discretion. HighInBC 17:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the merits of this discussion. However, unless the crats want it here, wouldn't it be better to move it to the Talk page? Normally, there aren't that many posts to this board, and generally they have to do with resysopping, desysopping, and other substantive matters involving the crats. Now there's so much activity here I feel like I've walked into a partial clone of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, which, at least from my personal point of view, is not a place I enjoy visiting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  It doesn't belong on the talk page.

  I don't think any of my fellow bureaucrats mind hosting this discussion here, but our participation at RfA is at the pleasure of the community. A discussion about how bureaucrats are/should be handling RfXs could be held here or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, as this is currently the governing policy for us using our technical ability to add the sysop userright (or indeed, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but please draw our attention to any consensus result). –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC. –xeno^talk 15:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

For reversing an arbitration enforcement block out of process, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysoped. They may only regain adminship after a successful RfA.

Supporting: Courcelles, Thryduulf, Seraphimblade, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone

Opposing: None

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

Inactive: AGK, Euryalus, Roger Davies, DeltaQuad

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Noting for the record that this was actioned by 28bytes. –xeno^talk 12:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

One of the surprises that greeted me upon my emergence from extended Wikibreak was the fact that crats no longer perform renames at WP:CHU. With that in mind, should we remove the CHU entries from Template:Cratstats? bibliomaniac15 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, either that or grey it out and mark it as "historical". Removing it all together gives a different impression. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstood the template, which I don't use, it's not a stats template at all, it's a "what needs to be done" template. Anyway, Xeno's below answer is right. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because bureaucrats still perform renames if they are global renamers. Also USURP can only be tended by local bureaucrats as there is no global usurpation policy. –xeno^talk 11:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. bibliomaniac15 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Chaps. I've just become aware of this page and haven't read it in detail yet. I wondered whether we ought to be involved individually, see if we can compose a group response that we can all agree with (I know, I'm an optimist) or whether we felt that we should keep a watching brief? Totally open-minded. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I had a read this morning. I'm an advocate of reform but I don't think that RfC is going to go anywhere as it's far too much of a free-for-all at the moment. That said, I'm interested in the idea of a group response that we could agree on - not so much for this RfC, but more that we could actually lead some reform as a group in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a group response on RfA reform at any time in any venue. We're too passive - albeit for good reason - and RfA can be a horror show, yet I'm sure we're all passionate about improving it. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am an admin that was less active in the last year, and hence got provisionally suspended. If possible I would like to request re-adminship. Please let me know if there are any actions I would need to take beyond this request. Many thanks :) Chris 73 | Talk 15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi welcome back. I'm feeling a bit rusty, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think we agreed to wait at least 24 hours from a Crat saying "looks OK", before granting the mop back, in case someone has good grounds for objecting. So, from my perspective, looks OK. Hopefully, we'll switch you back on in a day. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issues, and yes, there is a 24 hour waiting period. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

The candidate in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生 is not active so has been unable to respond to questions. His editing pattern indicates that he doesn't edit weekends, and perhaps he didn't consider the significance of that when the RfA started. Or perhaps he is ill or unable to get online. We don't know. But folks are starting to vote oppose based on that. As he is not available to respond to concerns, and we don't really know why, would it be appropriate to suspend the RfA over the weekend? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say not. If he is unavailable, he can address those opposes when he gets back, and if he has decided to not respond, the voters can take that into account. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Per Worm and further the candidate does not appear to edit regularly on weekends as per Timecard and after going through Yamaguchi's contributions during the last month shows the editor does not edit on weekends and it does appear to be his/her normal editing pattern .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• MusikAnimal appears to be familiar with the candidate. (as noted here). The length of absence is beginning to appear abnormal. You may want to re-evaluate this. — Ched :  ?  19:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  They are back [4] :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Lexor (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Gerald Farinas (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Tristessa de St Ange (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 07:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I've deactivated Tristessa's UTRS account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Will a crat please remove my Sysop bit? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done I am surprised to see this. :( Thank you for your long service, Tiptoety. Acalamari 21:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Acalamari, putting aside my own surprise, is there precedent for having a non-administrator with CheckUser privileges? Regardless of the answer, is that what Tiptoety actually wants?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser requires passing an RfA (or being elected to ArbCom, although the latter has never happened without the former). Tiptoety passed an RfA -- my understanding or the letter of the policy is that resigning the sysop bit doesn't require also resiging as a Checkuser. I don't think there is an existing precendent. Of course, Tiptoety's wishes may lean that way anyways, I'm just answering your first question. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that Tiptoety had requested removal on Meta but I didn't think to check; I've now checked and he has indeed made such a request. Acalamari 00:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. Now I can go back to being saddened by the departure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I believed that there indeed was someone who resigned sysop but kept CU/OS flag(s) for a while. I can't remember who it is at the moment though so I can be wrong. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be me --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pursuant to this, I've deactivated Tiptoety's UTRS account, and also requested to our dev to remove the CU flag. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Account compromised. Please desysop. Login details for millions of accounts from various data breaches have been readily available in the public domain for months now. A small list can be seen here. If you use the same password across multiple websites including Wikipedia, your account might have already been compromised. Please force a password reset for all admin and functionary accounts across wikimedia projects immediately. Salv, sad to see an admin account with both UTRS and OTRS access using a 6 digit number as password. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Posting from another admin account to show how widespread this is. Please use a different password for your Wikipedia account, especially if you are an administrator or a functionary. WMF, at the very least consider implementing 2FA for accounts with advanced permissions. Meanwhile, desysop this one and CU other admin accounts to check for any unauthorized access. I assure you, there is no malicious intention on my part, just letting y’all know about this in the most effective way. OhanaUnited, please don't use your dob as your password - anywhere. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  I have temporarily blocked these two accounts, and will desysop IAR if I see any admin actions from either. I've notified Arbcom with a view to a level 1 temporary desysop. Worm^TT(talk) 08:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have desysopped both accounts. If there are consequences for not waiting for the go ahead from ArbCom so be it. My reason for desysopping straight away is that these accounts have now been exposed to the world as compromised, with information provided about their passwords and hints about how to find them. The person who did so (thanks for bringing this to our attention) does not say that they changed the passwords, which means that anyone can still log into them and (at the very least) view deleted edits, which is not acceptable. WJBscribe (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per Level 1 Procedures, I on the authority of the Arbitration Committee am requesting that the bureaucrats desysop Salvidrim and OhanaUnited as soon as possible. Notices will be soon to come. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, I was only 7 minutes premature. WJBscribe (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  That's fair enough, WJBscribe. I thought 15 minutes was fine to wait (I'd nudged the committee quite firmly!) - but I certainly support you action. As you can see Arbcom has reacted. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think we're all happy with an ex post facto interpretation of [5] NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  In the future, getting a steward to globally lock the account is another option. It prevents even logging in, so no information can be leaked. --Rschen7754 21:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  In this case there had been a global lock, local block, and desysopping, all together. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow up

I believe that when we last had a crop of compromised accounts (4 back in May 2007 as I recall), the developers ran a password cracker over all admin accounts to identify those with weak passwords. It sounds like we should do that again. I also think we should consider sending a talkpage message (and possibly email) to every admin reminding them of the need for a secure password, and asking them to change their password to one they do not use on other websites. WJBscribe (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would support this, definitely. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped Maggie a line about the password cracker idea, happy to take point on that if someone else can follow up on the reminders. Worm^TT(talk) 10:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

All functionaries have been notified to change their passwords as they get the email. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't believe that there are admin accounts with 6 digit passwords... Sam Walton (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would argue against running a cracker on the password file. It's a personal privacy breach and poor security protocol. After a breach like this a better plan would be to expire the Wikipedia passwords and require strong password replacements. It's never a good idea to create the very index that hackers want to see especially if the concern is multi-site that WP can't control (i.e. Wikipedia secures an admin account by exposing his bank account). It would be rather embarrassing as well as a liability if Wikipedia's crack program exposed editors third-party passwords in any fashion, even internally. --DHeyward (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a personal privacy issue. A password is revealed to Wikipedia when you create an account with it, it is not private information. If the same party you revealed it to attempts to guess it for their internal security that is not an invasion of your privacy, it is the organization protecting itself. I think you will find it a fairly common practice for anyone with advanced permissions to have their password audited in most organizations. HighInBC 15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have to run a cracker on it, it's private. If the concern is that it's used in multiple places, it's private. It should be treated much more guarded than a SPI investigation and checkuser logs. The assertion is that they are used in more than one place. If you're concerned that "JohnDoe" used the same password at his bank that he used at Wikipedia, it is not helping by finding his clear text password and just fixing the Wikipedia account. It's exposure that need not happen. Dragging out the password file is asking for trouble when there are ways to correct the problem that don't involve cracking. Auditing is important as well.--19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How about a forced new system which won't accept a password if it does not contain atleast one "caps" word and one "number" with no less than 8 characters...simple solution no?--Stemoc 10:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: Note that those requirements (Capital, digit, lower case + weird character, 8 minimum) are not really the strongest type of passwords, you end up with passwords like: Banana1! (the location of capital, number and character are often the same), besides that those passwords are harder to remember (causing people to write them down somewhere). Strong passwords are easy to remember but lengthy. Using a sentence or set of random words is optimal (bananacookietablecoffeeexception, 5 words to remember for you, but difficult to crack due to length). Basvb (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

XKCD saying the same Worm^TT(talk) 13:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Where do you think I got it from? However a minimum length for passwords is a good idea, I just created an account with "1" as password, that is a bit too short imo. Basvb (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: bananacookietablecoffeeexception, Hey, how did you guess my password? ~Awilley (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of WMF trying to brute-force the password hashes, as they did before. However, let's remember the problem on this occasion is not the short passwords per se, but using the same password elsewhere. A request to change your password again, for this was done relatively recently, should really stress this point. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of doing all this password changing and brute-force attacks, the WMF just implement two-factor authentication for all those with syop flags. That should solve a lot of issues. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've always been in support of adding 2FA (opt-in at the very least), and so is the community. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

All the password complexity requirements in the world aren't going to jack when you use the same password elsewhere, and Adobe someone flubs it due to poor database security and security design. 2FA should be mandatory for all advanced permissions holders, and optionally available to anyone else that wants to use it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

It seems like the 2FA Phab task is at the bottom of a big pile of CentralAuth related requests. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Tbf, its not like their "wikipedia" accounts were hacked, no need to strengthen the WMF servers just because both users used the same pass for their wiki as well as for another site where the hacking was carried out...As of now, all i can recommend is for all Canada based users to change their passwords as both users were from canada so it was something they both are part of in canada which was hacked--Stemoc 11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe another approach would be to require all admins to certify: (i) that they have a password that meets certain minimum complexity requirements; and (ii) that the password is not used for anything else. It could be understood that if the certification proves untrue, accounts will be permanently desysopped and admins will need to pass a fresh RfA to regain them. A page could be created for admins to signs within a period of time (say 2 months) for admins to sign the page. After 2 months, admins who haven't signed would be temporarily desysopped until they sign up. Is that going too far? WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's too far away, I think. You cannot prove the truth of it. — regards, Revi 11:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I like that idea, it seems very reactionary - when it comes down to it, there's only so much damage an admin can do. This was dealt with quickly, and would have been dealt with even faster if there had been any visible abuse of the admin tool. There's a big difference between recommending a course of action and enforcing one in this manner. The last thing I want to do is discourage people from signing up to be an admin, and something like that might. Worm^TT(talk) 11:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur: hackers thieves and vandals who get passwords are fair more likely to be going after banks and online vendors that Wikipedia, and only admins who have been declared their real world identification would be vulnerable even if their password was in the wild. Do we know if wikimedia software detects multiple failed login attempts? NE Ent 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC) updated NE Ent 12:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm positive you didn't mean any harm, Ent, but Eric S. Raymond would not like you referring to these people as "hackers", [6] and I don't really either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, there is ratelimiting preventing login if you fail to login for few times from given IP address for a given period of time. I don't remember the specific rules, though. — regards, Revi 12:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw the note on AN. For what it's worth, on other sites where I have been an admin or mod, we ran password cracking utilities and any staff member that came up positive got 2 days to change it. If they didn't, they would be banned until a) they told us they changed it and b) a crack was unsuccessful. Standard procedure, if you ask me. I would recommend anyone who comes up with a bad password to be identified by email, NOT talk page (the last thing you want is people looking and thinking "ooh, easy admin account to crack!") As for "there's only so much damage an admin can do" - well I don't think there's any technical reason an admin can't unblock JarlaxleArtemis or undelete any amount of G10 attack pages so they can be copypasted elsewhere on the net, and while no admin would normally do that, a compromised account who doesn't care about desysopping much is like a bull in a china shop and can scare editors away really quickly, who'll then require some serious diplomacy to win back. Mind you, think of how much damage a compromised 'crat or steward account can do! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• The real danger is in unlogged actions. A compromised admin account could quietly read deleted content that may compromise privacy and nobody would ever notice. As an admin I see deleted private info ranging from names to credit card numbers before oversight gets to it. We can't assume that a compromised admin account would be evident. HighInBC 15:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Both accounts seem to be globally locked. Anyways, one of them was a crat on Wikispecies, and an ORTS member. That is terrible. But even brute force won't help if the password is strong by itself, but used on another side with a security leak. Those cases of bad security will most likely not be found out until it is too late.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• See phabricator task T94774 and its multiple subtasks/blocking tasks for password proposals related to advanced users. Risker (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• 2FA is the obvious solution that most environments serious about security have already implemented. Wikipedia has taken the "just good enough" approach to security long enough. We used to not even use SSL on the login page. Add the option to upload a PGP public key and require that a simple challenge be passed on each login. You simple encrypt a random string to the user's key and demand that they repeat the decrypted version back. Simple to program and incredibly effective. HighInBC 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I take a moment to commend the work done by the unknown third party who has faithfully notified BN about this. Whoever you are, if you are seeing this, Wikipedia appreciates your work and is in debt. Thanks—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• EMail Many admins are not even email enabled as it not required by policy .Hence no email can be sent even in situations like this. User:OhanaUnited does not appear to have enabled the email option (He could have one without the Enable email from other users option in preferences which I do not know). Now if checkuser information is not available and without email access it may became complicated to confirm. Do think every admin should have email even if for privacy or harassment they do not allow users to email them by not choosing Enable email from other users option.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• However, they are an OTRS agent, and that is linked to an e-mail address, so that could be a way to possibly verify identity. They also have a committed identity key. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Recovery

Recovery part 2

Procedural desysops

If we decide to run a password cracker or send out notices, I think we should apply it to recently procedurally desysopped admin accounts as well, since they can become admins again with little effort. This is doubly important as the rightful owner is less likely to notice if their account has been compromised. — Earwig ^talk 22:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is probably easier to run it every time someone going to get an admin bit, since there are also RFAs.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I mean, I could compromise an inactive account, change the password to something strong that the rightful owner doesn't know, and then request the bit back. Running a cracker then wouldn't exactly help. I don't know; this is becoming quite beansy. Perhaps 'crats could employ a stricter set of verification criteria for allowing resysopping after inactivity, but I realize that's not always possible if the admin never revealed any personal info like an email address or committed identity. — Earwig ^talk 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC

Having discussed the matter with a member of the WMF Security team, I've put some options together on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Please can interested parties go there and have a look? Worm^TT(talk) 10:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why we haven't left a talk page message and/or emailed everyone about this yet?! — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been working to revamp the new admin school (which was actually renamed to just "new admin"), and since you guys are the ones who direct new admins to such pages I thought I'd ask for a little input. I noticed WP:ADMINGUIDE repeats much of the info at WP:NAS, and presents it in a less-organized way. So what I'd like to do is merge everything into "new admin", as otherwise having this information fragmented like this is confusing and makes it difficult to maintain. Some things like merging page histories we're not really going to be able to provide a playground for new admins to test it out, so we're in effect stepping away from a "school" and just providing a single comprehensive reference point. Any thoughts on this matter? It's a lot of work that I'm willing to undertake but I figure I should make sure everyone is OK with it before proceeding. We might also consider a new name entirely, perhaps "admin reference"? — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I helped write some of the New Admin School eight years ago (in fact, its creation stemmed from when I was a new admin in need of how to use the tools), and so I've noticed that over time parts of it have become outdated and messy. If you're willing to put in time and effort to tidy and update it, I would be extremely grateful. :) Acalamari 13:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I put some effort in not too long ago to update some of the areas including new screenshots, but it could probably still do with some work. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is badly outdated, I've come to find out. I think I've got the blocking and protection pages all up to speed, and I unified a user rights management section. Next I want to merge in WP:ADMINGUIDE, which is going to take a while. I also want to add a section for the basics on responding to reports at noticeboards, such as AIV, RFPP etc. I think the more comprehensive we make WP:NAS the less we'll have to "learn on the job". I know I personally made a handful of mistakes as a new admin just because I was trying to learn the ropes out on the field, as prior documentation did not exist. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudos to anyone willing to work on the new admin guide. It appears there is a procedure for dealing with deceased editors, which I was supposed to know about. Perhaps it can be included.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't know about that either. I can try to work out a miscellaneous section for little things like this — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines is the actual guideline, starting with being sure the user actually died. We post a request at WP:RFPP and link to the guide as here. (I didn't add the non-breaking spaces, just the request at the bottom of the diff...grumble.) On the confirmed death of an administrator, there would be a post here (and probably to the crat mail list). I wasn't aware that User:Telsa died. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the recommendations that have been made to me, I voluntarily lay down my adminship, recognizing that I will need to make a new request for adminship in order to have a chance at becoming an administrator again. I understand that becoming an administrator again in the future will not be automatic upon reapplication. Neelix (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this was the right choice, thank you for that Neelix. Worm^TT(talk) 19:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudos for making the right decision.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto to the above. Hope this whole saga doesn't get to you too much. Mdann52 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In September I asked that the admin tools be removed from my account while I was travelling overseas in case anything went wrong from using shared internet connections. I've now returned home and would appreciate it if my access to the tools could be reinstated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Just don't go reblocking yourself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't blocked myself since 2009! Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that once you've tasted the sweet ambrosia of the admin bit, it's hard to stomach the bitter delay inherent in using RFPP and AIV and CSD as a mere mortal. While I suppose I should stay desysopped for a few months longer, to more forcefully remind myself how annoying we make it for normal editors, I just don't think I have the patience for it. Also, if this only takes 24 hours, I might be able to be the one who blocks the joker in the section above (now deleted)... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I've half a mind to waive the 24 hour thing. –xeno^talk 20:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issues. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• *JOY* HighInBC 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mwahahaha! Fools! They don't even see what they've done yet! (oops, did I say that out loud?) Um, I mean, thanks 28! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just noting here that since you've been resysopped, I've re-actived your UTRS account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright! Wikipedia:New admin is now Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. So the old Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide (WP:ADMINGUIDE) redirects there. Everything it covered is explained in greater detail in our new admin guide. Bureaucrats, if you have a template you issue to new admins that links to the old admin guide or the "admin school", please update it to go to the new admin guide. You can also continue to link to the reading list as that is likely to stay.

This was a quite an undertaking, especially when you didn't know you can move subpages at the same time as moving the parent page... I ended up moving the main admin guide page back then moving it again and using that feature. Anyway, I think I finally got it right. There's probably more double-redirects that neeed fixing, I will try to look into fixing those. Also, I realized I probably should have gone with just Wikipedia:Admin guide, simply for brevity, but maybe someone can reassure me spelling it out to Administrators' guide was the right decision. Afterall we have our redirects such WP:ADMINGUIDE/B for blocking, etc.

There's still a lot of wrok to do. Namely, I want to get a lot of topics mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list to the admin guide, such as how to deal with discretionary sanctions, and some other miscellaneous topics. Input or contributions to this effort are greatly appreciated. The big thing I want to stress is we should try to keep the admin guide brief but informative. It is meant to give an overview of how we go about various tasks, and some the best practices and tools we can use to expedite them. If admins want the full story they can refer to the corresponding policy or guideline page.

Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Are you going to link to or list helpful tools and scripts for admins? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

They're in there. It's sort of organized by task, and where we explain how to go about the task it mentions how you can do it faster with a given script or tool. At some point I'll work on a dedicated page that lists the scripts. WP:US#Admin scripts is very lacking and I'd rather have it as a subpage within the admin guide — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Neil that having all of the scripts listed on a dedicated subpage is a good idea, so it's good that it's in your gameplan. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done! It surely is incomplete. Feel free to add whatever you feel is appropriate. The lists of tools live in subpages of each section of the admin guide as a means to refactor them and make them easier to maintain. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what stumped me was a technical issue, specifically, where to find the right templates to put on user talk pages and article talk pages. I still rely on Twinkle and I'm sure there are more nuanced notices and warnings available somewhere that do a better job communicating with editors. But I think when I went to look for them, they were all in a category and didn't have very descriptive names. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:WARN. Rgrds. --64.85.216.85 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I would be grateful to have my sysop rights restored. I've just got married and have 2 little children which has kept me away for a while but I believe I have contributed well on a small scale over the years. File Éireann 12:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(non-crat comment) It looks like they haven't been removed (yet?). My guess is that your edits from Aug. 24 through now restarted the clock on the "removal" process. — Ched :  ?  12:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking this - you are correct!File Éireann 13:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on whether you guys would still be the ones to talk to about this, but if you are see User talk:Tylas a vanished user who came back and resumed editing under their old, pre-vanishing name and is now blocked for socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

So we can have this user usurped by the vanished account, but I think we would need the user to comment here with his intentions. Andrevan@ 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor Grandpa Frank. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend simply returning the vanished account to User:Tylas (Vanished) or some such, then linking on the talk page/user page. Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading the page and the mood and CIR and all that, it looks like Bbb23 has probably already handled it for the best, even if it is a tiny bit unorthodox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[This] notification to User:Useight was never acted upon.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC).<br /ar

@Rich Farmbrough: This gets posted on here at least once every few months :D Useight has an active alt. Sam Walton (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I thought either there was some magic protection (like this), or the account was so old that it was inadvertently grandfathered. It would appear that Useight has no intention of using their advanced rights. So the account fits into the category "unused and likely to be unused accounts with advanced rights" which en masse are an unneeded security risk, but clearly doesn't fit into the category the rule covers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

I wonder if we need an edit notice about this. This is the third or so query about Useight (his alt has participated to bureaucrat discussions, so he isn't completely inactive in bureaucrat matters).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I first brought it up earlier this year. Although I never understood why he preferred editing with his alt account than his regular account with user rights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he is often editing somewhere on a less-secure computer (perhaps a public computer, or one shared with others...not sure), so he prefers to use the non-crat account to make sure no one has access to the tools if they someone access his account there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  Done –xeno^talk 17:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

If I'm coming back I might as well do the best I can to help, and much of that was run-of-the-mill admin work - I see CSD and RFU backlogs are generally quite a bit longer than when I was last active, and those are areas where I used to do a fair bit, so I'd be happy to get back to working on those.

My resignation was in heated circumstances, and for full disclosure the archived events are here. I do not believe I was under a cloud at the time I requested desysop and I had not abused admin rights (and I did not threaten to do so, despite some believing that I did). It remains my opinion that blocking highly active contributors in the middle of heated discussions involving them is almost always a destructive mistake, but I have no intention of ever again acting as an admin in any situation of high drama.

If any discussion is needed, I'm happy to wait as long as is needed for a decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You should get a light switch hooked up to your bit. HighInBC 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a bit on/off/on/off, wasn't it? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 - For context:

• User:Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with others that the wording of this request was ill-advised. Our procedures allow for a return of the tools, but note that if you take up the tools and then relinquish them soon thereafter, any potential future resysop request would necessarily consider the new climate in which you relinquished the tools. –xeno^talk 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I appreciate that, thanks - but my intention would be to never request resysop again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Desysop again please

I'm about to use the admin tools for one last time to block my own account. When you see I have done it, please then feel free to remove my admin bit again - I shan't be back, so I will not be requesting its restoration again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

— Special:Diff/619350861

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

When I look back on my previous opinions and judgments and decide I was wrong, I change my mind - what do you do? (That was a quote I read somewhere - can't remember by whom - but I've always wanted to use it) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems cloudy to me. HighInBC 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain how I was guilty of any misuse of admin rights and why my resignation was under a cloud. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Would the word "muddy" be better? HighInBC 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that I have not been to 'crat school so I may be way off. I do think you put on a bit of a spectacle last time, but that may or may not be relevant here. I will leave it to the experts. HighInBC 17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll accept there was a bit of muddiness around, and I can't honestly dispute what you say about "spectacle". I regret the emotional way I responded to some people who only meant well, including you, and I can only say that it was the result of a lot of frustration (and at least I showed I knew the right thing to do, which was to walk away). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I intentionally provided context without commentary, FYI, because I personally respect you but haven't really taken the time to fully evaluate all that's happened. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, understood, thanks - though I had already included the part you highlighted in my original disclosure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

On the cleanstart EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne which was aborted as the the user wished to get involved in Arbcom 2015.Was the Arbitration Committee informed priorly about your cleanstart ?Just curious why did you create your username with over 40 characters it had to be changed after an admin requested it ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not inform Arbcom of my cleanstart, because it is not required by Wikipedia:Clean start policy - see "If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use", and "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start". As for creating a username that was too long, that was simply because I did not know of the length restriction - as it allowed me to create it, I had no reason to think it was not acceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason you didn't know of the length restriction, is because it doesn't exist. No variant of Usernames must not exceed 40 characters appears at any point in Wikipedia:Username policy, and the closest it comes is extremely lengthy usernames … are highly discouraged but are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm privileged in that I know Boing! said Zebedee personally. Like me, he can be forthright when he's in the right; he's also an honest and extremely fair admin and was one of the best (160/1/0) we had from the 2011 intake. Let's not let this request degenerate in to the squabbling that happened last time - where even some 'crats showed their less revered side - and give him his tools back without a fuss. I'm sure Alan would not do anything to make me regret speaking up here and now that he's back, he's one editor and admin of the calibre we really need to keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me get this right:

1. In July 2014, having previously resigned uncontroversially, you asked for your tools back solely for the purpose of unblocking another editor.
2. That editor was unblocked by someone else before your request was actioned.
3. The bureaucrats who opined generally agreed that there was no policy-based reason to deny you the tools, although several stated that they were personally unwilling to do so in the circumstances.
4. Xeno Worm That Turned returned the tools to you. He expressly noted that this was on the basis that (should you resign them again as was your stated intention) the whole July 2014 debacle would be relevant to deciding (if you asked for them back again in the future) whether you had resigned in controversial circumstances. You accepted this.
5. Having regained the tools, you requested their removal after you had used them to block yourself, which you did. The tools were then removed.
6. You would now like the tools back.

My initial feeling is that I see much drama and silliness, but not really controversy. Asking for permissions back for a bad reason plus a self-block (and wasted time and energy of everyone who debated the whole sorry story) doesn't seem like sufficient reason to deny returning the rights. I would however, be interested if other bureaucrats have differing thoughts on this request. WJBscribe (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that sequence of events is accurate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned returned the tools, otherwise I concur with WJBscribe. –xeno^talk 19:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, corrected above. WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't think there is really a cloud, per se, this is starting to go into the realm where it is similar to people who request rename after rename after rename, and we finally tell them, "No." I'm on the fence on this one because it seems Boing! said Zebedee has been repeatedly wasting our time. They also specifically stated, "...my intention would be to never request resysop again", yet here they are again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It all happened over a very short period of time during a period of stress, which was preceded by a long (and by most accounts productive) time as an admin, and I've kept away for quite a long time since then. And I think I have wasted far far less of other people's time than I have saved in my years of admin work prior to last year's unfortunate events. And whatever your personal thoughts, do you actually have a policy reason to deny my resysop? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The bit should be returned as there doesn't seem to be any "clouds" or policies in the way but, requesting the "switch" to be flipped many times doesn't shine good on the decision making processes, which in time might hinder retaining the bit. I concur with Kudpung that Boing! said Zebedee is still a net positive (my phrase) to the user group. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no cloud, no evasion of scrutiny. I'm tempted to suggest he runs RfA again just to remind him how valued he is, but in my opinion this should be a simple resysop. That said, I should also disclose that I have met BsZ a number of times in real life, so would like to see other opinions. Worm^TT(talk) 19:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• (non-'crat comment, obviously) BsZ should be resysopped. I don't think we want to deter admins from stepping away when they feel burnt out or stressed out, nor those who have stepped away from later returning. Of course, optimally the exercise would involve less drama, and also would not be repeated repeatedly... we want back our Boing!, though adminship isn't meant to go boing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) FWIW, the three most recent re-RfA's seemed to go smoothly. I don't think it's a bad thing to go that route after a long-ish knockoff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  This is not the forum to change RFA policy, and unless you can show that I resigned under a cloud and must face RFA again, that observation is not relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  Actually since no functionary is ever required to use their tools it is not enough to prove that no rule exists to prevent you from getting access back. You also need to convince a 'crat that they should personally use their tools for that purpose. Any 'crat is welcome to decide not to act in this case. It certainly is relevant that you have been a bit wasteful of their time in the past. Just like users who request renames exorbitantly can be ignored, so can users who excessively request de-re-sysoping. HighInBC 23:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  I think I have enough supporters here to suggest that is unlikely to happen, and if no just cause for refusing my resysop is demonstrated then I only need one crat to do the deed. So do you have any evidence that my resysop would not be in keeping with policy? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's not a question of whether you have "enough supporters". My comment was only pointing out that you seem to waffle a lot on what you want to do. My being on the fence means I could go either way, though at this point I'm leaning toward resysopping. I would strongly recommend, though, that you become less of a waffler or you may run into an instance where someone finally says, "Enough is enough." We are all volunteers, and wasting our time with going back and forth on this is not playing nicely with us. . ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  Or opt to use some syrup... ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking "policy" – I was suggesting that a voluntary re-RfA would be a good course of action in this case. Thus it is relevant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  This is not a forum for open discussion on how best to approach resysop, it is a forum in which I ask for my bit back and if nobody can present a policy reason for denying it, I get it back. Your suggestion is interesting, but this *is* purely a policy issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Right, we wouldn't want to waste anyone's time on a few mouse clicks; so an RfA sounds like a good idea. Oh, wait... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are we worried about being "wasteful of their [the crats'] time" because they're so busy with RFAs right now? I've done 3 cycles of desysop/resysop myself, and this would be BsZ's third. I suppose I see a theoretical issue with someone switching back and forth all the time, but that isn't what's happening here. Three requests in five years isn't excessive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is when no one else ever does that. People generally don't bounce back and forth nearly as often as has happened here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • "Excessive" is usually not defined as "more often than other people"; it usually needs to cause some kind of problem for someone. Maybe Wikipedia defines "excessive" differently. Wouldn't be the first time that happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's the number of requests people are taking issue with. It takes seconds to turns the bit on and off. If you want to just be an admin on the weekends, I'd probably be willing to desysop you on Monday morning and resysop you on Friday night every week. I think people are a bit exasperated at discussions that have spawned from these particular requests. That said, I don't think there's any real doubt that Boing! is going to have his access restored. WJBscribe (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments, Floquenbeam. In my time as an admin and serving the editing community, my policy was never that editors should not be wasting my time - my time was mine, and if anyone wasted it it was me, and not the people I was serving. (And I've spent a *lot* more time helping others than I've ever asked others to spend helping me.) Similarly, I am not here to serve the crats, and I shall henceforth ignore those crats who complain I have been wasting their time - if that's what they think, they should just ignore me and go do whatever else they wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I wasn't complaining. I was merely pointing out the potential appearance of your requests in the past. Stating you are going to ignore editors who point out something which might (and apparently is, to some people) be a concern is not a very effective way to interact on a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Even if you don't see it as a problem, at least acknowledging that others appear to have the concern is the most effective course. Something along the lines of, "I can see where you're coming from. I'll keep it in mind for the future." would be a good way to respond rather than quoting policy. As others have said, there was no question of policy supporting the reinstatement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Nihonjoe: Apologies, I'd taken this board off my watchlist and didn't see this comment. I acknowledge and accept your point. I'd seen what I thought were people opposing my resysop for non-policy reasons, but I accept I was wrong in your case and I apologise for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
        • No problem. I'm guilty of this myself, and I hope I've learned through sad experience from it. Welcome back to the Mop Corps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Having been around at the time of the previous desysops and resysops, my recollection matches that of the 'crats above who have commented: ultimately I don't see a policy-based reason for declining this request. It will be nice to have you back as an admin, after the requisite 24-hour discussion period has concluded. 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  That's very kind, thank you. But I'm happy to wait longer than the usual 24 hours - I've been away so long it hardly matters to me, and I'd prefer to leave things open for long enough for anyone who wishes to have their say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. While I personally think it's silly for someone to keep asking to be de- and resysopped, Boing! said Zebedee isn't breaking any rules by doing so and, at the very least, he has created a little bit of work for we bureaucrats. I hold no objection to him being re-granted the tools once the 24-hour waiting period is over. Acalamari 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Fair comment, and ditto above. And with that, I'm off to bed - g'night folks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• As people seem to be in general agreement with my analysis above, I am also willing to re-grant the tools. We'll wait out the usual 24hr period for good order, however. WJBscribe (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Now done. –xeno^talk 17:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can a cat please flag User:InternetArchiveBot with the bot flag. It is a subset of Cyberbot II and will run an already approved task of addressing link rot.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678 and MBisanz:, can you please point to the WP:BRFA for this new account? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cyberbot_II_5.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

All WP:BAG based concerns on this are resolved, thank you all for quick responses. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you think it could also be granted the reviewer rights Cyberbot II has as well? That way, it won't get caught up in PC protected pages.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 04:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Related – @Cyberpower678: I don't know if you've had a chance to take a look at it, but this entry in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey may be of special interest to you... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I left a rather visible and noticeable comment there.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 05:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Usually at the beginning of the month, there is a notice of inactive admins who have been notified by email that they might lose the bit due to inactivity (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 33#Inactive administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 33#Inactive admins for October 2015).
But I've seen no updates for November and December. Does this mean that no one has been desysoped? Or is it just not being announced any more at this noticeboard? I think it's preferable for this process to be pubic because a) some editor might see an admin they know and reach out to them and b) it's just not ideal to have desysopings without a public acknowledgement in case questions arise later (like the admin wants to get resysoped). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The most recent batch of Admins were desysopped on Dec. 1: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015. So it is publicly announced somewhere. Is announcing those here actually a "requirement", or just a courtesy? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a requirement. I would say that it is customary, at least enough so that I do check each month to read over the list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The notes that are left here are typically polite promptings for us to do our job when we let the deadline go by. Sometimes we actually take the initiative and do the needful on time without a prompt. If it's desirable for us to post here in such cases, I'm sure we could try to make it a habit. –xeno^talk 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything is reported fairly comprehensively at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015. That seems like enough but perhaps links to that page (or whatever the year is) could be permanently linked so more people are aware of it. Mkdw^talk 03:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This RfC has been closed and the following changes will go into effect, effective immediately:

1. RfAs will now be advertised on watch list notices.
   • There will be a waiting period of 12-24 hours. Admin discretion may be exercised, before the 24 hour waiting period.
   • The usernames or the details of the RfA are not to be revealed. A short and simple one liner such as, "There are RfAs open for discussion."
2. RfAs will now be advertised on Template:CENT.
   • Some desire to use {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} on the template has been expressed, though it is not a requirement. Cyberpower678 is willing to make changes to the template as needed, if desired.
   • The advertisement on CENT does not carry the same restrictions that watch list notices have.
3. There is now a limit on the number of questions a specific user can ask a candidate.
   • The limit is 2 questions.
   • Appropriate relevant follow-up questions are allowed.
   • Obvious gaming should be dealt with accordingly.
4. The discretionary range is now 65-75%.

If there is a problem with my close, please let me know.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 08:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've made some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfA Policy RfC Closed - I suggest discussion be centralised there. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please review the closure on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

• I'm specifically posting this here because I want the 'crats in particular to see this. Could a bureaucrat kindly review the close and give their opinion on it? There will be no end to this dispute about the closing if someone very experienced and well-trusted doesn't at least endorse it. Biblioworm 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  It isn't just a question of who closes, but of closing it prematurely. The question of 65% versus two-thirds needs discussion. I'd like to see the !voters in that section polled as to which option they prefer. Jonathunder (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've moved this discussion to its own section. In particular, the closure for C1 is the most disputed one, so that one in particular should probably be reviewed and commented on by a 'crat or an uninvolved admin with extensive experience in closing discussions. The main issue is whether the range should start 65% or 67%. Biblioworm 20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Two-thirds, actually. Please review the comments. Jonathunder (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

67% is two-thirds rounded off to the nearest percentage. Specifically, 2/3 is 66.66 (with the six repeating). Biblioworm 20:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why this obsession with rounding to decimal percentages? That was one of the things discussed in the comments section. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Not that it makes a major difference, but a 2/3 - or 2 to 1 - is crystal clear. Clearer than 65% or 67% which is just a "random number" or a random rounding. - Nabla (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Where is the new discussion about C1 being held?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  On my talk page. There's been concern about me closing section C1 on the proposal, with claims, that I may be biased about the close. Being reasonable on my part, I'd like to think at least, I have reversed my close on that section for the time being until a bureaucrat can either endorse the close, or re-open it for discussion.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

When did RfCs stop being 30 days? - jc37 21:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of that RfC was open for 2 weeks. Some RfCs only last that long. The discussion on this particular RfC was found to have practically ground to a halt, so we agreed an early close would be appropriate.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Who agreed? Where did this discussion happen? I followed the RfC from the beginning, and I missed that. Jonathunder (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page. You can't miss the section. I started off asking if I should close early or continue waiting. If I was told to wait, I would have waited.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 21:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC#Close early? -- GB fan 21:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Still, please do not do that. If it is expected for a - important! - discussion to last a month, then let it last a month. I happened to be able to write most of my opinions, but I read about the RfC and then I only wrote a week or so later, when I had the time to read carefully and had time to ponder a little about it. 2 or 3 editors, in a talk page that most people are not following up deciding, to close early is not respectful towards others. RfA is mostly unchanged for years, can't you wait 2 weeks? - Nabla (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That section you point to about closing early was opened today. Even if you don't wait the two weeks Nabla recommends, at least wait one day. Jonathunder (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it's clear to me I goofed on this one, in more than one area regarding the RfC. I hope you can see it in your to forgive me, for a lapse in judgement like this. I'm not usually this pea-brained.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• It think it's quite impractical to have to wait another 14 days just to close an RfC that already had clear results and had become almost entirely inactive. If it's re-opened, given all publicity this has gotten, all the anti-reform people might very well move in quickly to sink the proposals. But anyway, efficiency is definitely not "pea-brained", in my opinion, but unfortunately efficiency is not always highly-valued when trying to pass proposals (in all governance systems). But, if everyone will continue to insist that it is done, I suppose we could re-open it for another couple of weeks. Biblioworm 22:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  However, I do not plan to take any action until a 'crat comments on this thread. Biblioworm 23:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it is highly inappropriate for an RfC on an important policy change to be closed that quickly. I think that the RfC must be reopened and allowed to run for at least 30 days. Moreover, again given the importance of the changes discussed in the RfC, it would be much better if it is closed by a team of 2-3 closers rather than by a single closer. Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• RfAs run for 7 days, even if there is unanimous support. RfCs should run for 30 days and the proposers should be prepared for them to last a month. This is especially important when there is a proposal to alter a process so fundamental as the RfA process. You can't just close an RfC when you have the results you prefer. I don't know who these "anti-reform" editors are but everyone is entitled to offer their opinion at an RfC as long as it is not disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  For clarity, I didn't close early to prevent these "anti-reformers" from commenting, I suggested an early close because the discussion on the RfC seemed to have hit a standstill. That aside, it's clear to me that closing it early was a bad idea, and is something I will not suggest doing in future RfCs.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, yes, I know that, and that wasn't the point of closing it early. But my point was that since this RfC has become so widely known (especially the part about expanding the range), I fully expect that a self-selected group of maintain-the-status-quo users (I obviously won't put together a list, but you know them when you see them) have now become well aware of this RfC and will attempt to sink the whole thing. Perhaps we should just put it on the watchlist for another few days, to get more input and balanced opinions from different community members, not just a self-selected group. The notice was actually removed before the scheduled time, in fact. Biblioworm 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• The full 30 days would have been preferred, and it probably should have been advertised at this noticeboard. I haven't reviewed the RFC in detail, but I'm not sure about the notion of a bureaucrat closing or endorsing closure because the result modifies the way we wield our wrenches (though I appreciate the trust editors are putting in us not to overreach). It would be better to have a team of closers, as has been done in recent RFCs that has wide implications. –xeno^talk 02:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is 14 vs 30 days really an issue when activity at the RFC reached a near standstill days before ending? It is not as though there were a bunch of votes right before closing. It came to its natural end. I really would hate to see this forward movement bogged down in bureaucracy(no offence to the 'crats). HighInBC 03:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it really is. I have given an opinion twice, in different sections of the RfC, at different times, as i have thought about it and drawn conclusions; i would have expected to be able t continue to do so over a month. Premature close, and closing an RfC before the standard month is clearly premature, even if it is discussed on the talk page, would certainly have the effect of stopping my participation and that of others like me who think rather slower than some; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You can rest assured that I will no longer be doing premature closes ever again, and I won't be touching this particular RfC anymore. I am sorry for the troubles I caused everyone.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 01:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should follow through on what we say we will do, because people make plans on that basis, and it is unfair to change the timing midway. We should also be encouraging editors to invest time reviewing all expressed views and crafting reasoned responses. Ending discussions prematurely instead encourages editors to comment as quickly as possible. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As a formality...

You are invited to comment on the now reopened Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. It will remain open for another two weeks. Biblioworm 03:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It'll be very unfortunate if this good faith SNAFU brings all of the "opposes" out of the woodwork... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. Surely no one was trying to "hide" or rush the RFC to produce a desire result, more time/participation can only result in a more robust result. –xeno^talk 11:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the line of thought is along the lines of yes, the early close was in good faith for a true belief that the discussion had died, but now since the close was debated, pretty much everywhere, including some very drama prone areas, that it may attract people that refuse to allow change on Wikipedia. They probably didn't care much at first because it wasn't advertised there, but now that it is, it might tempt to storm in and bring down the RfC. That's how I'm interpreting this. I could be wrong though. In any case, I have learned my lesson here, and if I really did end up killing what looks like a well thought out RfC, I apologize Biblioworm.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 05:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So the question becomes, why wasn't it advertised there? Surely not to try and put one past people who might raise objections? If a poll is held but proponents of one particular proposal attempt to keep it hush-hush so people who might opine differently than the "desired" result, this is not a poll I would feel comfortable implementing. Either there is consensus for the change or there isn't. Ending things early, not advertising in places where it ought be, this just seems akin to redrawing political riding maps to disenfranchise certain classes of voters. Hopefully I've misunderstood these comments that seem to indicate that the early closure should stand because certain people who didn't notice the poll and weren't able to register their opinion are now able to do so. –xeno^talk 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the timeline on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats showing all users who have served as bureaucrats and noticed that 2015 is the first year when there has been 0 new bureaucrats appointed. In fact, in January 2016, it will have been 2 years since there was a successful RfB.
Meanwhile, I was looking at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological and found that it stops at 2012 and so since then have all RfBs been successful or is the page not being updated?
I know that now that there are global renamers, there are fewer responsibilities that are solely left to bureaucrats but with the recent notices about bureaucrat activity requirements and removing permissions, I'm wondering if there are enough bureaucrats. Maybe all Wikipedia needs are 7 or 8 bureaucrats or perhaps you could use more help and new faces, I don't know. This subject has been occasionally discussed but I thought I would create a thread to ask if you all were concerned about the lack of RfBs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To comment on one part of your post, I can confirm that all RfBs since 2012 have been successful. :) Acalamari 00:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's remarkable. Isn't the bar of support for an RfB at least 80%? Or is it 85%? I guess fewer editors want to go through the process. But for it to be two years without a successful or unsuccessful RfB is pretty notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a RfC a long time ago that dropped the standard for RfBs down from 90% to something else. I did find Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll but I don't know if that is the latest.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It was 90%? That is ridiculously high. I can't believe it was ever that high. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It used to be. See here, for example. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need more, yes the standard is high, and it's a self-selecting group. Similar to how Harvard applicants pretty much all have top percentile grades and SAT scores compared to the general population. That all RFBs have been successful is partly also a sign that, aside from the rare contentious RFA, bureaucrats don't do all that much. Andrevan@ 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say we are less like the Harvard elite and more like the mostly idle paper-pushers in charge of issuing fishing licenses in an underpopulated county. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten the impression we needed more. What work is there for new bureaucrats? — Earwig ^talk 05:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't much, in my opinion. Some of our 'crats are also global renamers, and handle the user rename requests in that capacity (or in Avi's and MBisanz's case, in their capacity as a steward), but other than that, it's closing the occasional RfA (which tend to be handled promptly) or responding to requests on this noticeboard (which also tend to be handled promptly.) We have it pretty well covered at the moment, I think – no real 'crat backlogs to speak of – but of course attrition is a real phenomenon, so if anyone is interested in helping out in that capacity we would certainly be happy to welcome them to the team pending a successful RfB. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That answers my question, 28bytes. Since there is such a high threshold of support that must be met in an RfB, bureaucrats have a high level of trust given to them by the community and there is probably more responsibilities they could be entrusted with. But I've also noticed a reluctance to expand the scope of bureaucratic duties so I guess the current situation will stay the same for the now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the "superconsensus" of 80-85% plus that is required has been partly a function of us not needing very many bureaucrats. The aim has tended to be to appoint 2-3 each year, so I guess the community has felt able to afford to be picky. I suspect the current lull in applications results from the creation of global renamers, which has considerably reduced the available work that only bureaucrats can do. Whilst difficult to argue that we need greater numbers of bureaucrat, the community might want a fresher team than some of us old timers...
I don't think we should mistake the level of support in a RfB for general approval - bureaucrats have had the support of 90%+ of the community to do certain tasks. That same level of support has tended not to present in other contexts, such as ArbCom elections. Couple of examples:

1. A bureaucrat running for ArbCom: My RfB had 98% support. When I ran for ArbCom the following year I had 68% support at the time I withdrew.
2. A former Arb's RfB: Wizardman had 66% support in the same 2008 election and was appointed to a 2 year term. His subsequent RfB in 2013 received 97% support.

I think that's something we need to bear in mind when it is suggested that the bureaucrat role is expanded. WJBscribe (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*I generally have a very high regard for our 'crats although I tend to tease them a bit during various discussions. I see them as argute semi retired senior civil servants who are still on the payroll in an advisory capacity. If they were given a broader mandate (and would accept it) their wisdom would be worth its weight in gold, and we might even get a few new contenders for the job. Yes, we need more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I also agree that we need more, if nothing else just to avoid a perception of the group as distant and ultra-elite. The standards are ridiculous for a job that ultimately has very few new responsibilities. Curiously, despite the extremely high level of scrutiny, I've noticed in RfA reform that the community seems to have a distrust of bureaucrats and adamantly fears giving them any new abilities. Maybe, if the current reform efforts see some success, there will be more RfAs and we'll start electing some 'crats again. Biblioworm 16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Forcing upon the community that which they have, according to you rejected the notion of, sounds like having the opposite effect - namely that the group perceived as "distant and ultra-elite" will simply become bigger! Do we really need more of the very accurately described "semi retired senior civil servants who are still on the payroll in an advisory capacity." Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written. It needs content creators & editors, not more officials. Leaky Caldron 17:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I see myself as a person in the middle. I see the need for both. We need officials to keep order and vandals off of the site and we need editors to keep are articles up to quality standards. The problem is, that in both areas, there are people that are just way too aggressive and results in a clash creating a toxic atmosphere on the project. If the aggressiveness can be solved on the project, both parties can work more harmoniously, but that's way easier said than done.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

      The idea was always that the editors would run the project. We don't need officials who are not editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

      Wouldn't that be ideal? Wikipedia has become so big that the valued content editors that end up becoming admins will end up doing adminny stuff instead of editing. True you can't inexperienced editors step up, but it would make more sense to have less content focused editors, who still understand the value of content to step up to let those who focus on content to continue doing what they do best. I know this can be debated, and there is no perfect solution to this problem, but in an ideal world, I would agree with you. But what about the botops? What do we consider them? I'd like to see myself as a technical editor who contributes by eliminating tedious work with automated processes, like the no 404 project I'm working on.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 04:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

      Bots very important. We can't keep increasing the number of pages without handing more work over to Bots. Good luck with your 404 project! I've been working on getting the FACBot to handle Featured Lists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I think RFA has changed. Anyone running for RfB now needs fairly good insight into RfA, but in order to do so, it means considerable participation. RfA has felt more rocky lately with increased standards, quite a bit of contention over how discussions/badgering occurs, and a marathon of RFCs. I think we'd have quite a few candidates that should be able to pass, but won't, either because they aren't "boring enough" and have too much history/drama or RfB standards have likely inflated along side RfA so receiving 80-85% support seems untenable. Mkdw^talk 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• That's not the impression I get, Biblioworm – the feeling I get is that Crats are specifically distrusted by the Admin corps who generally don't want to give them new duties and want to set limits on them (e.g. the recent activity limits on Crats, which is ironic as there is some resistance to doing exactly the same with Admins if Beeblebrox's current RfC is any indication...), just as regular editors tend to distrust Admins: it's just a fact of life that you generally resent the guy above you on the totem pole... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm an admin, and I don't distrust the bureaucrats. I think they've gone through more than enough scrutiny to justify their being trusted with more abilities. Biblioworm 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• You mean "with greater responsibilities". Presumably we can soon expect to see you RfB. Leaky Caldron 21:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Eh, no. Not anytime soon, anyway. Perhaps I will if there is any need for more in the future (given my interest in the RfA process), but at the moment that doesn't seem very likely, and if it ever does happen it will probably be several years from now when some of the more active 'crats retire. (Or, if by some miracle, we recover from the RfA drought.) In any case, there's not much that the job has to offer, and I'm not sure that I would want to go through ultra-RfA II just for a few new checkboxes. Biblioworm 21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Admin corps" is a general term. I'm not implying that every Admin holds those views (far from it...), just that it's my impression that this is a substantial or possibly even prevailing view among Admins in general. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, Over the years, not many editors have been as closely and as persistently concerned with adminship issues as I have (perhaps Worm That Turned or WereSpielChequers) and I cannot recall a single instance of such an opinion being expressed by a sysop.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That being the case, why don't you run for bureaucrat Kudpung? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

+1.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 05:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because, Hawkeye7, 1) like my bid for a seat on the Arbitration Committee, trolls would come with their obnoxious PA and accuse me of being a crank, a villain, a pederast, and a misogynist with absolute impunity just like they do their damnedest to derail many RfA., 2) I'm not boring enough, and 3) I fight bullshit with a bullwhip. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers certainly should, IMHO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The very reasons I thought you would make a good bureaucrat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading "there's not much that the job has to offer" and "I'm not boring enough", I'm sure you two didn't mean to imply that being a bureaucrat was not interesting or that our beloved bureaucrats are boring. When I read over crat chats, they seem pretty damn important and sharp as a tack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We did, Liz, because it's been said many times by many people, including 'crats themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Kind of surprising to read over these points of view. I had the sense that bureaucrats had the community's trust and respect and that there was recent discussion about asking them to take over more responsibilities, not fewer. With global renamers, given that bureaucrats' primary responsibility is granting and taking away admin rights, I imagine that editors/admins who have animosity towards them disagree with some of their adminship decisions. I don't distrust bureaucrats, quite the contrary, and I don't think most editors distrust admins although they might not care for individual administrators. But admins don't trust every other admin either so this is probably just a clash of personalities, practices or philosophy. And I think that is common in most online communities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I've also thought the bureaucrats were among some of the community's most trusted and respected body. They're essentially elected with the trust that they will fairly weight the voices of the community for RFA and likewise, serve a functionary role in promoting or desysopping admins at the will of other bodies like ArbCom. Mkdw^talk 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be good to have a new 'crat or couple elected, not because we necessarily need the additional hands on deck, but because not having promotion and change at all levels gives the impression of a project at stasis and could suggest that only people who have been on the project since the early to mid '00s are trusted by the community. If you're a respected admin who participates at AfD and are reading this, do please run. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I am requesting reinstatement of my administrator status, which was removed on 2015-10-02 due to my inactivity (my last edit had been on 2014-09-17). I've been on a "wikibreak", but am returning to editing. I have been an editor (joining over 10 years ago with over 39,000 edits) and administrator in good standing. Thank you for considering my request. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with reinstatement after the standard 24 hour wait. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Delighted to have you back and I agree with Joe. Just a few hours more. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Y May the force be with you. –xeno^talk 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

With the likely success of the current RfA's, just wanted to quickly remind 'crats that the "new admin school" and the "administrators' how-to guide" have been merged into the new admin guide. Hoping to get some valuable feedback from new admins over the coming months. Many thanks and happy holidays — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi MusicAnimal, thanks for your work with updating the help pages/tutorials for new admins. I'll be sure to update accordingly my message to new admins whom I flag. Acalamari 15:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks from me as well. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi there! I've been on an extended hiatus/wikibreak for some time now, but am pleased to say that I've returned! Please would you be kind enough to reinstate my admin privileges that were suspended in October? Many thanks, --Tristessa (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Be patient, I think maybe the crat Xmas party started early this year, heh. Rgrds. --64.85.216.119 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done No objections raised over the (nearly) two days. Sorry for the delay. Acalamari 14:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Accordingly, I've also re-activated your UTRS account. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A little late, but I support this reinstatement. No concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey crats, I started a proposal related to your current duties: WP:VPR#Allow admins to rename users? Max Semenik (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been a few months since renames were part of our duties. We just add/remove +sysop and +bot these days... WJBscribe (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Usernames are global now and so must be renamed globally. Not all crats are global renamers, and I think you'll find it difficult get consensus to give global rename to all admins. Either way, the discussion should be at meta. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Commented there; in brief: admins who wish to rename can apply for the permission, I don't think it being handed out on a large scale is wise. –xeno^talk 16:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Xeno. For what it is worth, I rarely see the queue above a half-dozen, and it is empty the plurality of the times I check. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Arbcom decision, please remove Soap's admin permissions. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to make the formal announcement, it has been concluded per community consensus that the discretionary range on RfAs should be expanded from the current de facto 70–75% to 65–75%. Bureaucrats should ideally keep this in mind when closing future RfAs. Thank you. Biblioworm 01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bravo! Andrevan@ 05:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have advised Bcorr, Brion VIBBER, Cimon Avaro, Cprompt, Ilyanep, Infrogmation, Jwrosenzweig, Raul654, and Secretlondon (by talk page [7] and email) that they have not met the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements and that their bureaucrat permission may be removed if they do not return to bureaucrat activity within the next month. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity for further information. –xeno^talk 21:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I noticed under "Bureaucrat activity requirements" the statement, "If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity...". Does this mean that an inactive bureaucrat can not just respond to this activity status notice by editing or doing admin tasks but must conduct bureaucrat activity if they want to keep their bureaucrat permission? I guess, at a bare minimum, that could involve posting on this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

They would have to participate in bureaucrat activity, however this is widely construed and involves even merely "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks". –xeno^talk 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xeno (et al), I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I probably won't be returning to Bureaucrat activity within that timespan. I haven't really been actively participating in the project for a number of years (just a few edits here and there) and don't really feel that I'm caught up enough on the latest community standards/guidelines/norms to really participate in any bureaucrat activities. Plus, I'm sure that the existing active bureaucrats have the responsibilities as well-covered as they were when I was around. Best wishes to all of you! :) – Ilyanep (Talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Noted. While I still participate in Wikimedia (especially Commons), most of what Ilyanep said above goes for me as well. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the update and your past service. –xeno^talk 23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I can only echo Ilyanep and Infrogmation's comments -- I still support Wikipedia, I edit occasionally (and plan Wikipedia-related events at my university), but I feel too distant from the current community discussions to be active as a bureaucrat (not that I ever set any records in that regard -- the community has always had an active core that manages most of the business). I am grateful to the people who asked me to hold the role, more than a decade ago; I hope that my few actions then as bureaucrat served the larger purposes of Wikipedia; and I am happy to defer to those active today with best wishes and much Wikilove. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Jwrosenzweig, Infrogmation, and Ilyanep for checking in and your past and ongoing efforts- do feel free to request removal at m:SRP#Removal of access, if you like.
  I sent out the second notifications [8] and emails to Bcorr, Brion VIBBER, Cimon Avaro, Cprompt, Raul654, and Secretlondon.
  The request for permissions change will be made on 31 Dec 2015 for any of these editors who do not return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 15:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Xeno. I've been hesitant to weigh in because on the one hand, I'd like to be useful as a bureaucrat, but I have not effectively kept up with the continuing evolution in policies and procedures. I keep thinking that I will have the time to go through them and start contributing to some of the administrative work, but "meat life" (as we used to say) has kept me very busy the last few years.... - BCorr|Брайен 16:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's understandable, Bcorr. I appreciate you letting us know. –xeno^talk 03:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've requested the removal of the permissions at meta. –xeno^talk 03:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Xeno: You appear to be missed Cprompt Here.Or is there any other reason ?.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a mistake. Added, and the 9 requests have been processed, with thanks to Ruy Pugliesi and the users for their past service. –xeno^talk 05:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Question: so, of the 23 remaining bureaucrats, how many can be described as being truly "active"?! (The impression I've gotten is that there are probably just about a dozen truly active 'Crats...) TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • All of them meet the activity requirements. That makes them "truly" active. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm undergoing physical therapy for my back now, so I'm probably more "active" than I've been for a while . -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)