The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Zscout370 (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)}
• Little Mountain 5 (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)}
• Jnothman (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)}
• Ale jrb (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)}
• Cyp (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)}
• Fran Rogers (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 12:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, hi there. I did get the bot message about this, but the email notification was junked. Has this gone through? Ale_Jrb^talk 13:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ale jrb: do you mean it went into your junk folder? –xeno^talk 13:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the administrator rights from the other 5 admins. User:Ale_jrb, let us know if you want your admin user-right removed, otherwise it will remain for another year now :) Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Xeno, yes I did - I have email notifications turned on for my talkpage, but the message from the bot went to my spam folder so I missed it. Worm, thanks. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey! – Don't forget to update Wikipedia:Inactive administrators too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The topicons need to be changed as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to perform these updates; said edits are not strictly a bureaucratic job and can be made by anyone. Acalamari 18:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and removed the Admin topicons and userboxes (where applicable), and updated Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. (Sidenote: Man, there sure are a lot of Admins who will be desysopped for inactivity in February 2016!!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! (And you're right about next month...eek! I nominated one of them, too.) Acalamari 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have to admit I didn't know you were an admin, but I actually think the best admins are ones you don't notice so that's not a bad thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seems a waste of a good admin, but who needs the stress and agro? Happy editing, I've never found being one of the revolting peasants a problem myself so you'll probably find life is far more fun. Giano (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Clerking RfC".

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Now that renames are under the m:Global rename policy, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing is outdated. Once we rename a user (even in the context of a so-called "vanishing"), I do not think that we can undo that action and rename a user (or "unvanish" them) against their will under the GRP to "punish them for returning". Accordingly, I think that we should no longer offer "vanishing" as such (nothing was ever really vanishing anyway) but simply indicate we can rename a user to "renamed user nnnnnn" on their request and they can simply stop editing. –xeno^talk 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If an unvanishing shan't be done, then make vanishing permanent: vanish & block or no vanish at all. Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've long said vanishing can only be done if vanished & blocked. We can't have vanished accounts editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Xeno on this one.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that if someone socks (in violation of our policies) to get around a "vanish", then the previous account should be un-vanished. I also believe that while vanishing is a very nice option to offer our editors, I don't feel that our ToS require it, and as such, should be only available to members in good standing. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

A consequence of the argument is that a disruptive user would be allowed to vanish, and return immediately with a new name or IP addresses to the same articles with the same behaviour. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to stop calling it "vanishing" because nothing is being vanished. Users (unless they are under sanctions) are permitted to request renames. –xeno^talk 23:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

If you want to change that, you would normally need consensus to change VANISH. Instead you're arguing that the global naming policy applies now, and that it doesn't allow renamings to be undone without the user's consent. But clearly a disruptive user who has done what I described above isn't going to give consent. And the global policy doesn't say that renamings can't be undone. It also says the accounts should be clearly linked where there's a history of conflict or where the user did not leave. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin it is unclear to me what is at stake for you in wanting to unvanish. What is at stake for you? Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? How about "...it's not there so that disruptive users can pretend to leave, split their edit histories, and then carrying on editing the same articles in the same way while pretending to be someone else. That's a violation of SOCK..." Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

With renames going global, we are just going to have to address administrative concerns such as this on a local level through blocking or other sanctions. –xeno^talk 12:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I assume that no one thinks this is a good state of affairs. Pinging some global renamers: 28bytes, 99of9, Acalamari, K6ka, Keegan, Maxim, Worm That Turned. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I missed some pings: Cyberpower678, MusikAnimal. Apologies if I've missed others. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

"Purple Monkey Dishwasher Broom" is easy to remember. The point of the random string is obfuscation, because it's hard to remember. So renaming is not the issue here; the issue is the form of renaming that we call "vanishing." You are doing this and not blocking the old name, for example, which means it can be recreated and used with a clean contributions history by a user with a history of conflict. Does this not concern you? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We have no way of doing that. –xeno^talk 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Xeno, I don't know what that refers to. You could, for example, block the old name when you're moving a user with a history of conflict. Or make sure that meta:Global rename policy is followed. This says:

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

Regarding "duly and visibly linked," I see that with most of your moves you do leave a link, but with others not. I can't tell what you're doing that is making the difference. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

One cannot block what doesn't exist.

The ones that aren't leaving redirects behind are probably usurps. So we omit redirects so the usurping user's pages can go there. –xeno^talk 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You could leave a redirect and block that; create the account and block it; or salt the user page. You're omitting redirects in cases other than usurps, that's the issue. The global policy says that the links should be retained in cases of users with a history of conflict.

What do you suggest can be done to make sure links are retained to some minimal degree, so that users with problematic histories can't "cleanse" their account of contributions they don't like, then start using the same account again as though they're new editors? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A redirect is a page, not a user, and can't be blocked. If I omit a redirect other than a usurp in renaming, there are probably privacy concerns. Email me about any specific examples and I can explain. –xeno^talk 00:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Do you agree that it is not a good thing if User:A (with a history of conflict and 50,000 edits, many of them contentious) is able to turn into User:A (same name, 100 edits, no sign of contention, no link to the other contribs)? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note that "a history of conflict" is not the same as "makes edits I disagree with". How are global renamers supposed to know who has "a history of conflict"? –xeno^talk 01:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not discussing edits someone disagrees with, but (as the global policy says) users with a history of conflict. You could look at AN and AN/I, for example, and see how often that user has posted there recently, and look at some of the threads. If multiple people have expressed recent concern, that would be one indication. The policy doesn't say such users can't have a rename. It says that the old name should be "duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict ...," so clearly the policy assumes that global renamers will look for those things. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to email me to let me know which case you're talking about lacking a visible link. That said, no, global renamers are not doing deep searches on every potential project of a particular editor requesting a rename. –xeno^talk 02:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I personally feel that with the change in technical capabilities, we are facing a conflict here. At this point I'd say an RfC needs to be initiated of developing and official VANISH policy that is in compliance with the global policy.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 21:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• C678, I agree, but first we need to find out what to ask in an RfC. I can't currently find out what best practice is. Most renamers seem to leave redirects, for example. I'd like to know what is recommended, and whether there really is a clash between the new policy and VANISH. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  I tend to leave a redirect unless they request a privacy rename or a vanish. Since this happens on a global scale, I don't feel it appropriate to undo it, unless there was some global policy about it. I do however try to make sure the username conforms to policy of most wikis, primarily the home wiki to that user, so they won't have to deal with any problems. I also apply common sense as long as it won't cause problems in the future.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• C678, that makes sense. It's going to boil down to judgment. But it seems very unwikilike to "cleanse" contributions in the way I'm seeing it here, by renaming without a redirect, then allowing that user to recreate the old account with no history and start again. Same name, same person, contributions moved, no link between the two, unless you know where to look in the logs. That's surely not best practice.

Every single Wikipedian could do that. Maybe we could do it every couple of years to get rid of anything we don't like. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I would only do it if the account is in good standing globally. If they're blocked somewhere, I would prefer to discuss it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

 – Not an admin per comments below. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please see WP:AN#Deceased admin/Dreadstar for details. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, never mind; I didn't notice that Dreadstar had previously had admin rights removed. Never mind. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In the recently closed clerking RfC for RFA2015, the community once again emphatically voiced their trust in the bureaucrats by strongly suggesting (as editors have in other places long before this) that they take a more active part in maintaining order at RfA. However, I (as well as others) have noted that the 'crats never quite get around to doing this, which leads to enormous amounts of frustration as the great controversy over maintaining order at RfA continues to boil. I really think it's time that 'crats put an end to this nonsense arguing, step in, and begin doing what the community clearly trusts them to do... Biblio (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of 'crats who do actively watch RfAs and step in, for example, I recently started moving all discussions over three replies to the talk page - something that I've seen happen quite a lot (including movements by non-'crats) since I started that. I don't think that the 'crats object to taking that larger role. However, there is a balance to be had - RfA is primarily meant to be a discussion of the candidate's abilities. This is one of the reasons we expect the !votes to have a reason behind them. I've seen almost no discussion on any RfA which I'd describe as "nonsense arguing", the majority is civil disagreement over a !vote, which I'd refuse to remove completely. If, of course, you have some better criteria for removing posts or actions that 'crats might take, I'd be interested in hearing them. Worm^TT(talk) 09:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant the nonsense arguing in general about the task of maintaining some basic decorum at RfA, and who might be "qualified" to do it. Of course, since the clerking proposal failed, I interpret that to mean (after reviewing policies and discussing the issue with the closer) that for all practical purposes the status quo of informal clerking stands. In a sense, this might be better, now that I think about it. But we need to actively encourage it, per BOLD and our basic policies. Anyway, I'm just saying that a great deal of controversy would be put to rest of the 'crats began moderating RfAs more often. Indeed, many discussions are civil and honest disagreements, although sometimes these must be moved because of excessive length. However, we all (should) know very well that occasionally some RfAs become childish mud-slinging circuses, and someone should rein these in (although quite often no one does). Biblio (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The link is Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. We'll know within a few days, a week at the most, if people are happy with the closing statement. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd still like clarification as to whether a "clerking" bureaucrat can close the discussion. My opinion, for what it is worth and noted at that discussion, is that if the bureaucrat's only contribution is sheriffing the discussion for civility and remaining on-topic, they should be allowed to close. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My reading of that particular bit is that most people opposed to B1 ("Bureaucrats as clerks") did mention involvement as their issue. One or two supporters were conditional on the clerking bureaucrat not being the closing one; most didn't address the question specifically.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of what it means to close an RfC is: there's no expectation that a closer is any smarter than anyone else, but OTOH, there's an expectation that if someone has a problem with the closing statement, it's on them to challenge it. No one has challenged the statement that "we have lots of crats, and they can probably figure out how to divide up duties". That gives you some wiggle-room. Nevertheless, this RfC wasn't very focused, and personally, I'd be hesitant to rely too much on any conclusion. I assume there will be another RFC some day that evaluates whether RfAs are still seen as hostile, and whether what the crats did or didn't do about that was working. Avi, I'm guessing that RfC will probably give you much more helpful guidance than this one did. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, guys (and yes, you're all guys...). If amongst that huge list of bureaucrats and that teensy weensy number of RFAs it's not possible to get more than one 'crat paying atttention and keeping things properly flowing without internicine warfare while still having a completely uninvolved 'crat around to close...well, we're doing it wrong. Risker (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We're doing it wrong.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, very wrong I still think that clerking should not invalidate us from closing, for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Risker: Our Y-chromosome exclusivity can be very easily changed. RFB is thataway, ma'am -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Activity

Also, I think it pretty clear that a 'crat clerking an RfA is an demonstrates activity as regards Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive bureaucrat accounts. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's acting as a bureaucrat and counts as activity. The bot will pick it up as activity. –xeno^talk 00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – flagged by Maxim

Hi, my bot, FastilyBot, was recently approved. Could a bureaucrat please flag the account as a bot so that it doesn't spam recent changes? Thanks! :) -FASTILY 07:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, have fun! Maxim_(talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! -FASTILY 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So, further to the above sections, I wonder if we can knock up some simple guidance, in the spirit of Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/Clerking_RfC#B1:_Bureaucrats.

I'd kick off by suggesting that any clerking Bureaucrat is automatically recused from closing or any CratChat. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any link to the third RfC is IMO incomplete without a link to the section of the first RfC that was the reason for the third RfC: WP:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#C: Hostile environment. That should give you the full picture ... until the next RfC :/ - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, Dweller. Clerking shows no opinion as to the candidate. It is merely streamlining the discussion. As such, the clerk should be considered impartial and be able to participate in CratChat, if not close. I would say from my own part, I would lean away from clerking if it means I could not exercise my primary duty as a 'crat which is to determine community consensus. Maybe I'm wrong. As I'm the only 'crat to have clerked so far since the RfC. May I suggest that other 'crats try clerking and see for yourself if that affects your ability to be an impartial adjudicator of community consensus. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting take, Avi. In my opinion (could be wrong on this) ill-tempered comments more commonly arise from opposers than supporters. Crats have a really well established reputation for fairness, even if we are not perceived as infallible, and I'm worried we may jeopardise this. --Dweller (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• I think Avi has done an exceptional job - and I thank him for that. RfA is a tough thing, or at least it can be. The community asked you folks (the 'crats) to try to keep things a bit more ... crap, I can't think of a better word - "civil". Please keep up the good work. — Ched :  ?  09:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm keen to get stuck in, as RfX behaviours has long been a concern of mine. I've raised the idea of Crats policing RfX on a number of occasions in the past at this and other venues, but until now without consensus forming. I would just like us to agree some parameters. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Dweller: Actually, the Hawkeye RfA has been rather cordial, especially given the issues. What I've done regarding clerking is the following:

1. Removed phrases which I felt only contributed to rancor provided that the point of the editor remains

   I chose not to refactor anything. I think we should not try to restate people's opinions. Let them speak for themselves; our job is to facilitate the discussion to help the community make up its collective mind.

   Times where I felt that entire repartees were unhelpful (once) instead of "pasting over" with a note, I just moved it to talk

2. Enforce the two question limit, and yes, we sometimes have to decide what is a second or third question and what is a legal follow-up, and when do follow-ups become excessive, etc.

   Instead of removing them, though, I collapsed them. This way, the candidate can choose to answer on a talk page or the like.

3. Noted where questions were not directly applicable to candidates status as admin

   Only noted and not more, since consensus about that issue in the RfC was unclear, as opposed the 2 question limit which was clear

That's all so far, thankfully. I'd like to reiterate, that in the main, the comments have been well stated. Forceful points can be made about a candidate's suitability without devolving into ad hominem attacks on the candidate or other contributors. I would give more leeway to the discussion about the candidate, as opinions about his or her suitability includes matters of his or her temperament and on-wiki activity. For example, SilkTork's opposition is frank, but a representation of Silk Tork's opinion that is not an attack on the candidate as a person, but a detailed explanation of why Silk believes that the candidate currently has qualities that Silk feels are not beneficial for adminship. As always, constructive criticism of my actions is requested and respected. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In my experience with RfAs, the longer a discussion about a vote cast gets (with reply after reply down the page), the more likely it will be to become uncivil or to veer off the subject of the candidate's fitness. I agree that rather than censor an editor's comments, these discussions should be moved to the RfA talk page where those who are interested in pursuing a line of questioning can do so but these conversations will not dominate the main RfA page.

It also seemed to me that there are too many instances of multiple follow-up questions (sometimes listed together in the same reply) that really tread the edge of the new 2 question limitation.

Also, and this is based on nothing but my sense of fairness, I think that bureaucrats who perform clerk actions on an RfA should be able to participate in a Crat Chat but they should not be the bureaucrat that closes the RfA and posts the outcome. I think we have sufficient bureaucrats that, at minimum, two different bureaucrats can participate in an RfA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I think: RFA can be petty and even cruel at times. Wikipedia works best when it adheres closely to its core principles of civility, neutrality, and embracing the selfless work of volunteers. What little work we can do as bureaucrats to defuse flamewars and disarm trolls really needs to be done for the community will to be carried out in an atmosphere of collegiality and professionalism that encourages participation of friendly and well-meaning folks. Andrevan@ 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think Dweller makes some good points. It only takes two Crats, one to clerk, one to close. Crats aren't that busy, so it won't put a load on the system. What it will do is reinforce the idea that Bureaucrats are objective readers of consensus. If an argument breaks out over clerking pro/con, it will not affect the outcome as another Crat is going to be closing. It isn't that I can't trust the clerking Crat to be fair, we just do it to foster the appearance of fairness and remove any doubt. The only exception to Dweller's idea is that I think a clerking Crat should be eligible to participate in a Crat chat, but honestly don't feel strongly about it either way. As to HighinBC's concern that it will dissuade Crats from clerking, I would simply say that only one closes each RFA now and we have several active Crats. If we need more Crats, there are plenty of qualified candidates that will step up and fill the void, so it really isn't an issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • While I think we should still be able to close, if the community is really concerned about it, I can understand letting another crat close. I would be rather discouraged if we could not participate in a cractchat that we have clerked, though. Perhaps we should have a mini RFC to clarify which of the three choices a) no restriction b) no close c) neither close nor cractchat is our mandate? -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I tire of RfCs on every single debatable policy change but I guess it is inevitable or someone will cry "foul". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If it were up to me, I think that it is wikt:selbstverständlich that clerking is not opining. However. as our mandate comes from the project, and as I guarantee you there is a difference of opinion, it may be prudent to generate a baseline consensus. -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, but sadly, the project has become more reliant on the letter of the policy than the spirit. All the world loves a good legal drama. — Ched :  ?  02:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to bureaucratic duties, don't be shocked if the community is bureaucratic about it. I think that extremely clear rules are part of why we trust Crats to use discretion at the edges. I can live with any result, my opining above is what I am guessing the community would support (or at least prefer): different clerks and closers, but any crat can chat. Chatting is a group thing, not a solo action, so I would be surprised if the community barred that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One last note: I do feel that if the Crats agreed to the above (or something they agreed to as a group) and did it simply as a matter of practice, no RFC would be needed. What we want above all is consistency. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I acted on my understanding and both closed a discussion and partcipated in its cratchat, and I think that no one had concerns about my partiality, so that is a start . -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I would say that if the community trusts the bureaucrats to be impartial in their clerking activities, than that trust of impartiality should extend to closure or bureaucrat discussion. Also, the bureaucrat who is doing the majority of the clerking (in the most recent case, Avi) is probably the best placed to do a hard close or participate in a bureaucrat discussion, having been carefully following along the request from start to finish. –xeno^talk 18:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  I agree but still torn between that clearly accurate fact and the desire to keep at arm's length for appearances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done

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

---

Hello 'Crats, please revoke the bot flag for Abotzi, as the operator has vanished (bot was an AWB bot and can not run without an operator either). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (BAG member)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a strong reason to have blocked it; this doesn't match standard procedure for deflagged abandoned accounts. — Earwig ^talk 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Earwig I've unblocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 05:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• TwinsMetsFan (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)}
• Eustress (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)}
• Hdt83 (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)}
• JoanneB (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)}
• S@bre (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)}
• Lee Daniel Crocker (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)}
• Tompagenet (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)}
• Paul A (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)}
• Riana (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)}

S@bre's username should be entered in the user rights form as #719219.

Thanks to all of the above-mentioned users for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fond memories of some of those editors. I'd happily welcome them all back. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Noting here that Hdt83 was apparently missed in the procedural deadmin.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  Good eye, fixed. –xeno^talk 12:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa thanks, Jo-Jo. -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, have we considered enlisting a bot to report inactive admins? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A bot already does, it just doesn't place the report here at the expiration. –xeno^talk 11:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2)

Please flag my bot account. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Natalie Erin (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)}
• Misza13 (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)}
• Bigtimepeace (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 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Done, with thanks for their service. –xeno^talk 13:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

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

Pinging @Worm That Turned: for comment as rights were removed following emailed request. –xeno^talk 21:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Either one of you might want to drop him an email as he hasn't edited since March 2nd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. –xeno^talk 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I took a look in the usual places. I found two potentially relevant threads (1, 2), but they were from about a month prior to the self-desysop request and to my mind, they don't seem to impinge on re-granting the tools. –xeno^talk 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything which would prevent return of the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say the reasons given were personal, there did not appear to be any evasion of scrutiny at the time. Apologies that I'm not in a place to comment further. Worm^TT(talk) 04:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done As there have been no concerns raised or found, the admin bit has been twiddled to the "On" position. Welcome back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Blargh. So, I find myself getting sucked back in, at least a little. I didn't really need the admin tools back at first, but I've seen a few things which could use doing, so I might as well get them back--though hopefully those things will be done before the 24 hour wait is up. Previous thread here; nothing controversial (not that you can take my word for it). Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Cue the fireworks and ticker tape!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Writ! Bishonen | talk 21:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

I don't see any concerns preventing their return. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Nine Tail Fox (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)}
• Arvindn (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)}
• Papa November (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)}
• Wesley (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)}
• CatherineMunro (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)}
• Zippy (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)}
• Ian13 (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)}
• ZimZalaBim (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 12:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Done; with thanks from me as well. –xeno^talk 12:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello 'crats, please add +bot for KharBot (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)} per extended trial approval at WP:RFBA. For BAG, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Tools".

TParis (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I believe I retired while under no clouds. I'm interested in resuming work, part-time. Thanks.--v/r - TP 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Rights were relinquished here. Brief check found no concerns. –xeno^talk 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes please. Welcome back TParis. :D—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't see any problems. Just a few more hours and we can retwiddle the bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Zippy (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi folks, saw I was just de-adminned. Would appreciate reinstatement. Zippy (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) --Zippy (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Welcome back to the project Zippy! I'm sure a 'crat will process this soon, hopefully you can help us out at WP:ADMINBACKLOG, there is a lot of work to do! — xaosflux ^Talk 11:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  Had to check - but honestly thought you were a crat. TIL. SQL^{Query me!} 11:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  Same here. You should run an RfB.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Qualifies for reinstatement after the standard hold period. –xeno^talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My time for wikipedia editing has diminished significantly in the few past months and is unlikely to increase in the short term. For these reasons I'm requesting that my access to administrative tools be removed. When and if I return I may request resysoping as per site policy--Cailil ^talk 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for your service. –xeno^talk 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

TY--Cailil ^talk 21:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bureaucrats. I've just had the former user Homeontherange get in touch by email. It seems that some years after he took up his right to vanish, an impostor registered a new account with the same name. This was quickly noticed and blocked, but the impostor's edits remain visible as contributions for "Homeontherange". He asks if the impostor account could be renamed to something else and the name "Homeontherange" permanently locked. This seems reasonable to me. Could you make that happen?  — Scott • talk 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine renaming it as disruptively registered, not quite so clear on the best way to lock it from further registration without just re-registering it and leaving it dormant. Pinging some stewardy types @Ajraddatz, MBisanz, and Avraham:. –xeno^talk 19:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's locked right now, but I can understand the user's concern with his former name being a vandalism-only account. We could rename the account, and add the username to the global title blacklist (as an exact case) to prevent anyone else from taking it. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a plan. –xeno^talk 19:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If no else objects, I'll go ahead and start the rename, but ACC and the global renamers should be informed of the locked username, so other users with abilities to override the blacklist don't inadvertently create it when asked to.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

And  Done—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be forcibly registered and blocked with no history. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the username to the title blacklist. An error message will pop up when attempting to create the name or rename a user to that, which should be sufficient. If people think that creating the account and blocking it would be good (personally I don't see much of a difference to what is there now), then a sysop can override the blacklist. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much all for your swift assistance.  — Scott • talk 20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that any user such as myself can override the blacklist, so I'll drop a note on the ACC list and the global renamers list to be sure.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone interested: the title blacklist apparently doesn't block renaming to a blacklisted name. Second time yesterday that I assumed extensions actually worked the way they were supposed to! Anyway, I've created and locked the username, so that will have the same effect. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good work. -- Avi (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for cases of users wishing to unvanish and the name is taken. How would proceed for accounts such as this one, simply rename the locked account and give the user their own account back? What about cases where another user registers the username after the vanish?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long said that, as part of vanishing, the former account name should be forcibly recreated (void of editing history), locked (not blocked), FPP'ed, and scrambled. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but depending on how active the vanished user was (some users who request to vanish have only have a handful of edits, for example), this would be denying a potentially desirable name to a future editor. –xeno^talk 21:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If the user vanished, and a good faith user started using their username, then they would have to unvanish to some other username. –xeno^talk 21:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As per the right to vanish, is it possible to suppress the log entry that now appears at User:Homeontherange as well as the log entries at User talk:Homeontherange? As there is no user page or user talk page the log entries appear instead and that works at cross-purposes with vanishing. If it's not possible to suppress or otherwise make invisible the log entries could someone, as a courtesy, create blank pages at User:Homeontherange and User talk:Homeontherange so at least the log entries aren't immediately visible to casual users? 76.65.207.36 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created blank pages. –xeno^talk 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: A better way to create blank pages is this. The page was created with the text {{subst:void}}. See, the byte count is zero. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll remember that for next time. –xeno^talk 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI when admins have the bit removed they should be added to the extended confirmed group; the system will only promote once, so if somebody is automatically promoted, becomes an admin, and the is desysoped they won't get the extended confirmed right back. This won't be an issue for a while, since most admins who will be desysoped anytime soon were admins before the autopromote thing (so MediaWiki will have no problem autopromoting them). It's probably not a bad habit to get into now, though, and it causes less entries in the user rights log :) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Or may be just all admins should be added to the group.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Current admins that stop being admins will get this automatically on their next edit - this is a very edge case and is only needed if this is manually removed from someone when they become an admin - the best course of action is probally: don't do anything (i.e. when adding +sysop, leave +ec along). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at, just working under the assumption that they'd have that removed when they got the bit, though your way is probably better :) Kharkiv07 (T) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We can leave it in place, but there's no guarantee another admin won't remove it citing redundancy. And the fact is, there are really not that many articles with this protection in place: unless the user edits one of those areas, they may never need the userright. –xeno^talk 13:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello 'crats, would you please add +bot for JarBot (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)} per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Acalamari 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I was mulling this one over last night. Meant to post but sleep came first. Is there wide consensus to always have the portal link? The scope of this bot covers an awful lot of main space and after the "Research" outcry, a little re-assurance would be appreciated. –xeno^talk 08:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know of such a consensus on enwiki. I personally dislike these links, they belong on the talk page, not on the article, as they have no information related to the article except in a very loose sense (linking every school to portal:schools is way more remote than what we have otherwise in "see also" and the like). Many portals are not really maintained or checked either (though we also have good ones). Fram (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Such is my concern. And the operator (good faith thru-and-thru, mind you) has English as a second language and the only guidance they've been given regarding consensus is to check with the WikiProject that oversees the portal (which will likely have a bias in favour of adding it). @Xaosflux: thoughts? Can we tighten the consensus requirements here? –xeno^talk 09:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @The Earwig: was the BAG approver on this request, I just was clerking this one to here. Earwig, comment please? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Xeno: I'm 100% in support of adding a requirement that all mass {{portal}} addition jobs demonstrate that they have support of a project/portal maintainers - etc prior to running - does this satisfy your concern? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

        Yes, that would probably work. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

        • I have amended the bot approval to require gaining consensus prior to any mass article additions. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

        • As for as the general {{portal}} adding task; article usage of the portal template does appear to have widespread project acceptance in general, though exactly where on the page it belongs (in see-also, included in a navbox, etc) is not very consistent. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• From what I've read out of the request - this operators primary request was to be able to use highapi to read enwiki with the bot , this portal processing seemed to be an excuse. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I noticed that as well. We probably could have just given him the bot flag as "read-only" if that's all they needed. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Xeno and Xaosflux:, now what should I do?! Just use the bot "read-only" or i can add portal but most coordinate with a wiki projects to take the ear before adding portals related to their projects. thank you.--جار الله (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You may still add portals links, but before adding the portals ensure that either the wikiproject or portal maintainers are aware of the activity and support it. So for example before adding the School Portal - establish consensus at Portal talk:Schools or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools - depending on the portal the editors may be more or less engaged at once of those locations. In some cases, lack of objection may be sufficient - but it really depends on the size of the run - if you were going to add Portal:Animals to every possible animal - it would need a lot more support. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. (Also, you folks really need to bring up concerns while BRFAs are active; this one was open for over three months without any objections.) — Earwig ^talk 16:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't look at every BRFA, and we're supposed to act as a kind of check-and-balance after approval. –xeno^talk 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will put a request in the project page and wait a week before making any edit, as you told me, thank you.--جار الله (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Protonk (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). The bit was removed at my request in March of last year (no controversy, not under a cloud). I'd like to have it restored please. Let me know if I can provide more info or answer any questions. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any issues after the standard 24hrs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to have you back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I second Dweller's assertion! HighInBC 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Done –xeno^talk 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is discussion regarding possible removal of the tools, it should not be here. There was no valid reason to not return the tools according to the "letter of the law", so there is no need for further discussion on this page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – * Done –xeno^talk 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Administrators#After_removal_due_to_inactivity, I am requesting the restoration of adminship. It was originally granted in June, 2003 and was removed in 2011. I am eligible under policy. Thanks. -- RM 12:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ram-Man: Just barely. In 2010-2012, you had 16 edits total. From 2010 until today, you've had 668 edits (averaging about 92 per year) [3]. Are you sure you are current on all the policies and guidelines that have changed since then? Some of them have been very significant. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

{{nbo}} It's a reasonable question, and being very slow and careful with the tools is a good idea, but... (*cough*). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Your template is broken. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: you missed the joke. He's refering to {{nao}}, but there isn't one for nbo - non-bureaucrat observation. Not it matters, it's not only crats who can comment here. Worm^TT(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've never used that template. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It exists now, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Well you've always been able to do {{nao|crat}} or for that matter {{nao|anything}}. In fact, let me tag this comment as a (Non-Worm That Turned comment). ;) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's ironic that I'm being noted for having too few edits. 668 is not a lot, but they were beautiful edits. I'm usually more active on the Commons now. I became an admin with 6 votes and joking around. It's way too serious these days, but I've never engaged in abuse, and I've had a ton of opportunity. I've certainly engaged in large scale controversial actions. I've skillfully dealt with problem users, rarely ever having to resort to blocks. I've authored policy and helped form BAG, so I'm no stranger to working with policy, users, and building/determining consensus. I'm generally conservative with admin powers. I do use IAR when needed. I'm sure there is stuff I've missed, and I'd appreciate enlightenment, but I'm sure I'll do just fine if everyone does what they are supposed to do. If you can't trust me at this point, I figure you can't trust anyone. -- RM 23:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ram-Man: No one has said you can't be trusted. No one has said you shouldn't get the tools back. My original question was making sure you are comfortable having and using the tools again when you haven't been much involved in enwiki over the last 5+ years. There have been a lot of changes to many different policies, procedures, and guidelines in that time. No one is questioning whether you can be trusted with the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will be fine. -- RM 23:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's all I was asking. I don't see any other issues. I strongly recommend reviewing various policies and procedures before acting on them (again, due to the low involvement over those 5+ years). That way, you'll become familiar with them again when you need them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You are indeed eligible and from what I've seen there's been no evidence of problematic editing or any reason the admin rights should not be returned after the 24 hour wait period. I will caution you that things are significantly different around here compared to 2011, as Nihonjoe points out. I would also remind those who object on numerical grounds that consensus was clear on the matter and if you're not happy you should start a discussion for higher requirements. Worm^TT(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying they shouldn't be returned. I'm merely pointing out the large changes that have happened in the last 5+ years since Ram-Man lost the tools. I don't see anything in the history that would prevent a return of the tools. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and to go further, I'd also support a higher requirement to return tools. Worm^TT(talk) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To what changes do you refer? -- RM 21:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ram-Man: See [4]. At least as far as the official policy, It's not really that big a difference, IMHO. The short version is: be humble and you'll be fine. The slightly longer version is: if you're clueful and careful and open to constructive criticism you'll be fine. But it is an interesting question, and one you'd think we'd document somewhere in a more organized fashion. Off the top of my head, I'd say the biggest thing that's different from 2008-2010 is a stricter attitude about WP:INVOLVED. Err on the side of caution there, I think that's where admins returning after a long absence (and/or even dinosaur admins that never left) run into the most trouble. And I'd say there's perhaps a tougher attitude about rougueishness in general. And finally don't block non-vandals for the first few months until you've got a feel for the current zeitgeist (did I use that right?). I'd be interested in what other people think are significant changes in expectations for admins over the last, what, 5-10 years, and perhaps we could slap together a page. This isn't the perfect place for that discussion, but since the question was asked here, and this page isn't ANI-long, and I've already tried to take a stab at the answer here, and WT:ADMIN is so useless.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in a run-down. Forget admin school, we need admin continuous training. :) Protonk (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Update is an attempt to collect the significant policy changes in recent years. Like most things, I'm sure it could be improved, but it's a start. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Reasonable questions have been asked and answered. I currently see no policy-based opposition to restoring this user's mop. As such, I believe it should be restored from 24 hours from Nihonjoe's response. Unless of course, significant policy-based issues are raised between now and then. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Done –xeno^talk 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

---

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

As indicated by WJBScribe, if there are concerns about problematic edits, please take that discussion elsewhere. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

• AlvaroMolina (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Hello, I come to ask the flag of confirmed because when attempting to perform certain issues, I have to enter the CAPTCHA every time I jump ads. Thanks. --Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 04:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue. WP:PERM/C would be the correct place. However, since the bar for automatic confirmation is deliberately quite low, the vast majority of requests [there] are denied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done The user is established on other wikis, see [5] so granting confirmed is no big deal. WJBscribe (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

WJBscribe, can this be reviewed? The editor has been attempting many inappropriate speedy deletions and giving edit summaries in Spanish. It might be best to withdraw the flag and require the normal wait, given today's damage. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't have any effect as Alvaro's editing history goes back a couple of months, so has now passed both thresholds for autoconfirmed: Noyster (talk), 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

---

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

Hello 'crats, no action required, just a note. The bot flag that was required for KharBot (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)} to complete trials placed by @Avraham: should be left in place as the task (WP:SIGNPOST publishing and delivery) has successfully completed trials and is now approved. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound insensitive, as a matter of fact, I'm always hurt to see a Wikipedian get flagged as deceased, even those I don't know, but we should probably remove all the permissions this user has globally.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussed at WP:AN, and also backed up with links provided here. Nyttend (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sad news. As is customary, I have removed the permissions from his account. WJBscribe (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I also blocked his account. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we didn't do that unless they were compromised, per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account? WJBscribe (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, as it had been common practice in the past. I've unblocked the account. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As this was not even mentioned on WP:CRAT, I have added it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've processed the inactive administrators queue for this month, with thanks to these users for their past efforts. I've also notified X! (talk · contribs) concerning Wikipedia:Bureaucrat#Bureaucrat activity requirements. –xeno^talk 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Dravecky had deceased, per here and here, should remove his/her admin right. 333-blue 13:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin rights were removed 26 April 2016. -- GB fan 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

But there is still a picture on his/her userpage, though. 333-blue 04:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

But they aren't an admin. SQL^{Query me!} 05:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just a picture on his userpage - it doesn't grant any permissions. I think the picture should stay as he was an admin at the time he passed away. WJBscribe (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree the icon and userbox aren't harming anything, I removed the categorizations (Special:Diff/717218650, Special:Diff/717218956) and the large RIP notice will more than suffice to not confuse anyone passing by. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm with WJBscribe on this - Obviously if an editor is desysopped or is faking it then yeah it should be removed but in this case the user was an admin until he passed away so personally I believe it should stay (His name isn't on Category:Wikipedia administrators [6] so there's no harm in it being there.), Just my 2¢. –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The rights are removed for security reasons, the icon is harmless. User pages often say things that are no longer true of deceased editors, it does not mean we have to update them. HighInBC 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• Thunderboltz (talk · contribs)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs)

— Music1201 ^talk 06:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Useight comes up time and time again -- he remains active to this day (although as of late he's stuck to his public network alt, Useight's Public Sock). Also, please don't ever request removal of permissions to the Stewards yourself -- let the 'crats do their job! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In fact, stewards will reject any request not made by a bureaucrat, because the policy (WP:CRAT) requires that a bureaucrat make that request. Please do not do this. --Rschen7754 07:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • And the desysopping of inactive users is done near the beginning of each month. Graham87 08:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thunderboltz has a log entry less than a year old. The other two users are pending, see WP:INACTIVE. –xeno^talk 11:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, I never requested removal of rights to stewards, thats why I posted here. — Music1201 ^talk 16:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Music1201 By Crat consensus WP:INACTIVITY policy has not been applied as account specific.Pedro raised it here and by me in the same discussion here that WP:INACTIVITY clearly states Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped with emphasis is on accounts and not person and there is consensus it is not person specific and there was consenus IP editing is not activity. But Crats have consistently viewed edits or logs made by alternate accounts as activity as mentioned here. It needs a fresh WP:RFC if one wants the Crats to apply the WP:INACTIVITY policy to be applied as account specific .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Useight only uses his alternate account, wouldn't he qualify for inactivity regarding bureaucrat actions? It's been 3 years, 8 months since he used that account and Useight's Public Sock doesn't have bureaucratic status, so he hasn't met Bureaucrat activity requirements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically an alternate account may be considered an extension of the main account used for security or segregation purposes, I believe this is the thinking employed in not exercising inactivity removals on Useight's main account. Their last definitive bureaucrat action was 11 July 2015. –xeno^talk 12:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hello all, I am back editing and would like to request the tools back. You can find my original RFA here and my resignation here. I have reviewed recent Wikipedia policy and feel comfortable that I will get back into the swing of things. I expect to mostly perform basic clean-up at first as I reacquaint myself with the tools. Please let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking as a non-Crat: You gave up the admin bit in 2009, which was over three years ago. I don't think that would qualify for an automatic resysop, but would likely make a new RFA easy after 3-6 months of regular editing. Either way, welcome back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators#Lengthy inactivity only applies if there is a three-year period of complete inactivity following relinquishment (further explained by Pharaoh below). –xeno^talk 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  • • Ah, ok. For some reason I thought it required you have had the bit within three years as well. I don't see a lot of activity before this year, but enough to satisfy the requirements. I stand corrected, and my apologies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• non crat observation. He is not long term inactive ( without an edit or logged action for three consecutive years) as he has edited every year as per this and do not see anything to say that he left under a cloud as per this ,he only stated that he is retiring not vanishing .Do think he is eligible for a resysop as per policy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Being the person who closed the RfC that made the resysop requirements policy, I know that this request meets requirements. Provided they clear the 24 hour waiting period.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Meets the requirements for restoration - voluntary resignation in good standing, and no period of inactivity as long as 3 years. WJBscribe (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

UTRSBot (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)}

Hello 'crats. Following the approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UTRSBot, please review and provide a bot flag for User:UTRSBot operated by User:TParis. For WP:BAG, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. WJBscribe (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for information, most bot-minded bureaucrats have Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved on their watchlist and will see the "NEEDS FLAG" and attend to it accordingly. If we haven't gotten to it within 24 hours after it hits that page, a post here would be fine. –xeno^talk 16:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought Newyorkbrad was going to, but I will ask if you guys take a look at this if you haven't already. Since decision making at RFA is solely your domain, it would be very helpful to have input from several active Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gads. What a hairy mess. I commented over there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Crats, will one of you consider moving SimonTrew's emphatic support in this RfA to the appropriate section, and maybe move some other stuff from the same thread to the talk page? This is needlessly confusing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked him to move it himself? I don't see a need to move the comments if the editor didn't intend for them to specifically be in the Support section (no matter what the comments say). It can still be taken into account when it's closed in a few hours or so. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the conversation--hard to get a straight answer out of him. He was already asked, and there was an answer, but I didn't quite understand it. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

He seems to be under some sort of misguided impression that since he heard of the RfA from somewhere, for him to cast a numbered vote would violate the anti-canvassing rule. Personally, unlike the other discussion of bogus or trollish !votes, I don't think that supportive commentary (of reasonable length) in the bottom-of-the-page "comments" section is unduly troublesome. That said, it would be even better if Simon Trew adhered to the conventions of the RfA pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Nihonjoe on this. As far as hatting or not hatting as Drmies did, I don't see either as being a problem, but the main comment is just that, a comment. This kind of ties into the "leave it alone" consensus here. Different thing, but same concept. People are so edgy at RFA, the participants often more so than the candidate, that I would hesitate before removing or refactoring anything that isn't really a problem. If a Crat wants to, that is fine, but it seems unnecessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Dennis, the main comment is a vote of support. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

But he chose to post it as a comment. In the big scheme of things, it isn't hurting anything. You could tell him it is fine to move it if he wants, but to force it on him doesn't change the outcome and borders on pedantic meddling. Maybe he doesn't want to for whatever reason but only he should be able to decide that. We do allow editors to make supportive (or opposing) comments without actually voting, either in the Neutral or Comments area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me, my hands are very bad so it is difficult for me to fiddle to move things to the right section. I don't often well come here so I don't know the procedure but please excuse me for putting it in the wrong section it is very difficult for me to type. Well I can type OK but I can't kinda do multiple finger stuff and hold shift and drag and things like that. Sorry about that, thank you for doing it for me. I put it in the comment section because I wanted to make it absolutely clear there was no WP:CANVASSing here which I could see could have looked like that since both Tavix and I are regulars at WP:RFD (Quite often disagreeing but always WP:CIVILly). Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

So, just to be absolutely clear: You would like us to move your comment to the Support section of Tavix' RfA as a formal 'support' vote, correct? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Does it really even matter? I'm pretty sure we are capable of taking his comment into account when closing the discussion. There's really no reason to basically harass him into moving it. It's not important, urgent, or necessary to move it in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Jumping in here as an observer, I've been working with SimonTrew in other forums on the site for a while now. It is extremely unlikely that he will follow through on moving his own comment. I did try to explain to him a little while ago about the importance of him moving his own comment if he wanted it to be counted, and he seems to have interpreted it as though if he edits his own comment he will be open to some kind of sanction or harassment, and not long after he blanked his talk page. He acts in good faith, but this one !vote isn't going to decide Tavix's RfA, and so I suggest letting it go. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In terms of the numerical outcome of the RfA it certainly does not matter whether SimonTrew's comment 's moved to the Support section as an official 'support' !vote. And it also seems unlikely that SimonTrew will move his comment himself. (Particularly since he indicated that he has some physical difficulty with typing). However, it would still be good to have a clear and unambiguous Yes/No answer from him regarding whether he wants us to move his comment for him. This way we could officially put this matter to rest. But, in the absence of clear and definitive instructions from SimonTrew, I believe his comments should remain where they are now, in the General comments section. Nsk92 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Nandesuka (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)}
• Werdna (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)}
• Wimt (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)}
• Malo (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)}
• TheParanoidOne (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 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done, with my thanks also. @Xeno: has X! received a second notification regarding the bureaucrat inactivity policy? WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: yes, and I have requested the removal of the permission. With thanks to X! for their past service. –xeno^talk 15:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The removal has been processed. –xeno^talk 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A non-etwiki user is requesting adminship over "JavaScript issues" at main discussion of etwiki here: w:et:Vikipeedia:Üldine arutelu#JavaScript, and claims that etwiki JavaScript files are old. I personally consider this request slightly suspicious, because he's not specifying what needs to be changed, what is the new version, and what's the source of the new edition of what he wants to change. What to do? -Mardus /talk 18:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This request can, and should, be handled at Meta-Wiki, and probably by m:Stewards (who have cross-wiki admin access). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

See m:Steward requests/Global permissions/2016-04#Global editinterface for Nirmos. I honestly don't think it's worth worrying about; nothing bad seems to have happened. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this guys has been going community to community - I don't read all the languages but seems that some have given him +sysop (see: Special:CentralAuth/Nirmos); pretty sure we don't have to worry about our 'crats doing this. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what he went with after his GEI request failed. Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it's for the local communities to decide. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a Steward, but if what he's doing it really helpful (and at least a few communities have agreed to +sysop him), it sounds like a perfect candidate for GEI (not GSysop). ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking personally as a script author, I'd rather be blamed for my scripts failing than have someone else muck about in them, even for as trivial a change as this. Maybe not very "open-source" of me, but if they want to fork, they can fork; while it has my name in the title, I'd rather be responsible for it myself. that is, pretty much the same reaction as I had when Technical 13 tried to request sysop/GEI for actually the same exact thing, I think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, WK, scripts in your userspace are already editable by anyone (even IPs). What this user's request concerns is MediaWiki pages (which requires Sysop or GEI). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: No, they're not. Pages in userspace that end in .js or .css are automatically protected from everyone save admins and the user themself. It would be an unimaginable security liability of literally catastrophic proportions were it otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Goddamn it. I even double-checked by logging out before saying this to ensure I didn't look like a fool... but somehow I ended up looking at the TALK PAGE of one of your userspace scripts. Sorry! ;) ☺ · Salvidumbass! · ✉ 00:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I supported his request myself, but better judgement prevailed. Considering one of my global scripts broke yesterday I'm wondering if it had to do with this change... Maybe I'll ask him! Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Enwiki is well-patrolled and he can make edit requests for pages here, but I'm wondering, is there a "global edit requests" pages when one could request edits be made to MW/protected pages on smaller wikis without themselves having to obtain GEI/local sysop? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, m:SRM is probably the best bet for that. But I think he might have already posted there at some point. Oh well, maybe if I get some time next week I'll check in with him and see what still needs to happen regarding this. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remove my admin bit. I don't need any bits other than extconf/autoconf. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. By order the government, you must remain a sysop. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Who will act as a calming influence and voice of reason!? HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done, enjoy your bit-break. –xeno^talk 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi crats. Not sure if all of you have seen this. There's currently an idea going around at the village pump which would completely change the role of bureaucrats, by allowing them to appoint admins themselves. There's even some talk of making all current bureaucrats go through another RFB. If you're interested, the thread is here, we'd appreciate your opinions on the matter. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Watching. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify: It's not currently an RfC, so right now it is only a discussion of what might go into an RfC (or multiple ones, since there are multiple ideas being discussed there). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Mark (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)}
• Idont Havaname (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)}
• Toon05 (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)}
• ItsZippy (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)}
• Kevin (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)}
• Ellsworth (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)}
• 2over0 (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)}
• Khaosworks (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)}
• Trevj (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 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Permissions procedurally removed. Thank you for your service. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been suggested, in the resulting discussion, that the matter I raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unacceptable personal attack should be dealt with by a 'crat, not an admin. Could we have some suitably-flagged eyeballs there, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone else had already removed the comment in question; I've gone further and removed the rest of the exchange from the RfA - it's not germane to the candidate. –xeno^talk 15:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you're patrolling RfA: I believe this comment [7] by SchroCat is also an abuse of RfA to cast unsupported aspersions, to make dramaboard threats to discourage other participants' legitimate questions about an oppose rationale, and to bend the page to furtherance of RfA-extraneous, personalized disputation. It should be (along with my response to it, and SchroCat's REVTALK [8]) administratively removed to the RfA's talk page, as has already been done with Cassianto's similar commentary (to someone else, about the exact same matter, and in the same vein). I could go into the background of this FAC-related factional behavior in more detail/diffs, but this isn't the proper noticeboard for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a 'crat but I have received an off-wiki complaint about this. (Why me?) I have hatted that discussion on the RfA so it goes no further. I will say this - let people have their !vote and respect their opinion. SchroCat has opposed, I have supported. SMcCandlish thinks BU Rob13 would be a good admin, I agree. Andy has supported, so have I. We respect each others views. If anything, the lack of BU Rob13 getting involved in this kerfuffle put him in even better standing as an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The hatting works for me. Thank you. I agree with "let people have their !vote" – I was not suggesting a retraction – but it's SOP to ask for a clear rationale when there isn't one. Sometimes the rationale is nonsense, and sometimes it's eye-opening; I have actually changed my stance in RfAs several times after responses to such requests for clarification.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please remove my administrator status. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note I feel should be posted, @Edokter: Are you positive ? as reinstatement might be considered "under a cloud". Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, who is going to maintain the CSS sheets from here on now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, in short "the community" - this may be a gap but it is up to the community to fill, not our 'crats; it may come to more edit requests that need to be reviewed as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)