Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Please remove the bot flag from my bot, RoboMaxCyberSem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have no plans to resume any tasks it's been approved for. For security reasons, I'd rather not have an idle account capable of making invisible edits. If I ever need the bot flag again, I know what to do. Max Semenik (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Max Semenik (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Quick query (leading from the above of course); could someone please point me to the policy on bot flag removal? Thanks. Lourdes 00:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  The removal above was carried out under Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bot_flags section 2.b, Bot flags may also be granted or removed in other situations (such as requests to the bureaucrats' noticeboard or other noticeboard discussions). Ultimately, bots are under the purview of the Bot policy - which is not very specific on the removal of flags. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  With my BAG hat on, occasionally we get around to making up a list of dormant bots for retirement, which may result in a flag removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks. Lourdes 10:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please could you remove the admin rights from my account. I am no longer active and have no need for them. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone remove my admin rights? I'm not as active as I used to be, and frankly, I don't have the patience (or equipment) to deal with this two-factor authentication stuff. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. ('crat conflcit - was processed by User:28bytes) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the only equipment you need is a somewhat secure computer running most somewhat modern popular OSes. (Well definitely Windows is fine, and I also know you can use Chrome on OS X or Linux. I suspect it'll also be fine on *BSD and there are also non Chrome app options for OS X, Linux and probably most *nix variants but I haven't looked that well.) You don't need a smartphone as some people believe. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I probably should have resigned a while ago, anyway, so I'm satisfied with my decision. Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• 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)}
• RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khaosworks

Hi, my admin privileges were suspended due to one year of inactivity. Since I appear to fulfill the criteria for resysopping, i.e. am a former admin, did not go inactive with a view to avoiding sanctions, was not inactive for a period of three years, I am wondering if I could be reinstated. I have been definitely not very active in recent years, but I have never abused my admin powers and feel they could still be useful if I encounter any violations of wiki policy. Thanks for considering. --khaosworks (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Revoked in July 2016 (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_34#Inactive_admins_for_July_2016) — xaosflux ^Talk 05:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• While barely active (~30 edits in 5 years; ~1 admin action (a self-U1 deletion) in 9 years) I don't see any policy reasons to prevent re-assignment following the standard 24 hour holding period. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As Xaosflux says, you meet the requirements, so can have adminship back. I am pleased that you're thinking of getting more active on Wikipedia and hope what I will go on to say won't put you off - but I'm not sure why you want to be administrator. Your last admin action (other than to delete images you uploaded/pages in your own userspace) was in January 2007 - nearly 10 years ago. I hope you will carefully read up on Wikipedia policies relating to deletion/blocks/protection before taking any admin actions. 10 years is a long time. WJBscribe (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. Be sure to get up to speed with what's changed since you were last active. 28bytes (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• With all of the recent admin acct hackings, someone might want to brief Khaosworks on the new two-factor authentication system, etc. Rgrds. --64.85.216.210 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I agree with both WJBscribe and the unregistered editor from the Show-Me state. Khaosworks, please read up on the rules, which have changed significantly in the last ten years, and on the recent spate of hacked admin accounts. Cheers, and welcome back. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The following administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity in excess of 12 months:

1. No Guru (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Carabinieri (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Deckiller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Olaf Davis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Doug Bell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Thank you all for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A new subpage for the inactive administrators page and the bot will have to be updated so that it can reflect the new year coming up. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: That's already happened. Graham87 12:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And I've just added it to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Thanks for the reminder. That's all I'm really up for today. Graham87 12:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. The candidate's gone through enough. Just a most gentle request to perhaps initiate the closure of the Rfa. Lourdes 03:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have commented that this should go to a bureaucrat discussion. Mkdw^talk 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat for ease of navigation. Mkdw^talk 04:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have just commented that it's high time the RfA be closed to voting pending a decision of some sort from the Bureaucrat camp. Leaving it open to gather more votes is not fair on the candidate and not fair on the community. Either close it right now pending a result, or now declare an official extension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, pinging active-ish bureaucrats: @Nihonjoe, WJBscribe, Warofdreams, Wizardman, and Xaosflux:. Am I the only one alarmed that those five plus a couple others are the only ones who have edited at all in the last several days? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ks0stm I'm active. Have I fallen off a list somewhere? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"...plus a couple others...". Lourdes 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've placed the RfA on hold and started a crat chat. I have very limited time as about to start a day of meetings (I'm in Moscow on business so in an earlier time zone than usual). I would be very grateful if someone could help by dropping a note to all my fellow bureaucrats asking them to participate. Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now sent a talkpage notification to all bureaucrats. WJBscribe (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and talkpage note, I've now commented. Warofdreams talk 23:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 The discussion has been closed as no consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in the chat. It was professional and thorough, and adequate time was given to address merits on all sides. Once again, I feel profoundly privileged to be trusted by the community and given the opportunity to work with you all. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

See approved task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot II. This is for an admin bot that will maintain the AWB CheckPage. As the bot approver, Xaosflux rightfully has not flagged the account himself. Please review at your convenience. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Should User:ListManBot be de-flagged now that its replacement is approved? 28bytes (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on User talk:Kingpin13#User:ListManBot it looks like it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have not been active in some years and I think it's time to give up the tools and make the admin count a tiny bit more accurate. I was an admin for ten years, albeit with varying activity levels, and I enjoyed the work and found it interesting; I recommend it and hope that the RFA rate goes up. Thanks to you all. Chick Bowen 02:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi, I would like to request the return of my admin tools. I'm currently focusing on transferring files to Commons, and there have been quite a few times where the bit would have been helpful. Thanks, FASTILY 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Last removal 2012-04-08. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a standard 24 hour hold for comments on such requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• A little background prior to the de-sysop request by the user: In March 2012, an AN report involving myself as the dynamic IP led to Fastily retiring in the middle of the discussion, which then ended abruptly. He had no further edits until the day before turning in his bit here at BN. That was a long time ago, yet very frustrating nonetheless. Rgrds. --64.85.216.10 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it was frustrating, but while I'm not permitted to make the final determination, I would say his resignation was not "under a cloud". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-bureaucrat comment) FWIW, having reviewed the AN discussion and Fastily's talk page archive, I agree with Dennis about the lack of precipitation-bearing sky-based meteorological items above Fastily's head back in 2012. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Doesn't Fastily's retirement predate any defined notion of "under a cloud" the current policy has? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Nah, the language about resysopping and avoiding scrutiny dates back to at least 2010. (Are you thinking of the 24-hour wait, which is more recent?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• From my memory, while there were concerns raised about some of Fastily's deletions around the time he resigned, it would be highly unlikely that a desysop or other sanction would have happened. Thus, the tools should be restored after 24 h waiting period. Maxim_(talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Tricky one. The retirement came undoubtedly at a time of controversial circumstances. There had been a pattern of poor judgements from Fastily leading up to their decision to retire and relinquish the tools. Therefore handing in the tools could be seen as avoiding scrutiny, and coming back here after the dust has settled may appear disingenuous. On the other hand although there was a developing pattern of poor decisions, it was not egregious and was unlikely to lead to sanctions unless it persisted. Taking a break was clearly the best decision for Fastily and we should not discourage editors from taking a break when they get stressed. So I have mixed thoughts on this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Martin, could you please provide links to other criticism of Fastily's actions prior to his resignation? I'd like to understand why you say that "the retirement came undoubtedly at a time of controversial circumstances". WJBscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  See the link the IP posted above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  I understood Martin to be referring to other criticisms (reflecting a pattern of poor judgments) in the run up to the resignation, which is why I asked for links. WJBscribe (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  You'll find further references here -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  In 2012 I attempted to take on a massive volume of work, more work than I could comfortably handle, which ultimately resulted in lower quality contributions and burnout. I won't be making that same mistake again. -FASTILY 03:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fastily's resysop request should be granted, as it is both compliant with policy and accompanied by a rationale. Although not required, a commitment on his part to avoid the sort of deletions that were controversial in the past would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't know Fastily from a bar of soap. However a read through the AN thread doesn't suggest the subsequent resignation meets the definition of "under a cloud." The specific G6 may have been a bad call, but everyone has made at least one of those. Support restoring the tools, and wish them all the best with their toing and froing with Commons. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an unusually high level of apparently uninvolved community comment on a resysop request. May I ask what has prompted it? *Is Fastily just a particularly well know (former) admin, or is there another reason for the level of interest in this request? WJBscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the level of comment directly stems from the IP's post of the AN thread that preceded the resignation, implying the potential existence of a cloud. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Came here because BN is watchlisted and wanted to read what NYB had to say. Added my own view in the grand Wikipedia spirit of the peanut gallery. Plus it's mildly more interesting than most resysop requests, which are pretty clear on the "clouds v no clouds" criteria. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why we voted in the 24 hour clause, for the 1% of the time there may be questions. At the end of the day, it isn't a vote and the Crats have the final say but it is good to get input so they can make an informed decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I know this is not a vote, but I have a comment and must reveal a bit of bias, because Fastily has been very helpful to me. I've had some involvement in Commons issues where Fastily has been active. There's a lot of back-office stuff that needs getting downdone that doesn't get a lot of press. Fastily does a lot of it. I've had several occasions to need some help on some tricky issues and Fastily has been extremely responsive. I don't know any of the details about issues they have had in the past, but my impression is that the explanation is exactly correct; Fastily wants to work on some image related issues involving transfers between Wikipedia in Commons and on occasion would find it helpful to have the bit. I see no reason why this shouldn't happen.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think part of it is that Fastily was desysopped on Commons for cause. But I see no procedural grounds to not restore his adminship here. --Rschen7754 02:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Count me as one of the 'crats who is comfortable restoring the bit. I was a participant in the AN thread linked above, and while I (and some of the other editors) had some concerns, and the possibility of a RfC/U was floated (back when we had such a thing) I think at worst that would put it at "half a cloud." It would be a different matter if there were an active RfC/U or arbitration case at the time, but there wasn't. (It's pretty common for people to step away from the tools for a while when they're feeling under siege, and I would hate for us to somehow punish that instinct. Breaks are good.) 28bytes (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Admin bit has been twiddled. Welcome back, Fastily. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY 07:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that my views on this are now academic and I don't criticize Nihonjoe for returning the tools - I understand why he came to the view he did & the other bureaucrats who commented (28bytes & Maxim) supported returning the tools. But because I am mindful that these decisions can be taken to set precedents, I think it's worth noting why I don't agree.

I'm left with an uneasy feeling about this one and would have preferred a bit more discussion. I'm troubled by the Commons desysop (although the policy has never really dealt with the issue of controversial circumstances after the resignation), and by 28bytes' suggestion that there was potentially "half a cloud". I do not think that there has ever been a consensus to limit "controversial circumstances" to being an active RfC/U or arbitration case - otherwise the policy could simply refer to resigning whilst there is a pending ArbCom case (or similar). It is to my mind sufficient that there was a sound basis to bring such a case. I also don't agree with the idea that it's a good thing for "people to step away from the tools for a while when they're feeling under siege", which sounds to me like avoiding scrutiny. People can take a break from editing (in which case those with grievances can still pursue the matter further) but I don't think we should be encouraging resignation in these circumstances, by saying that such resignation will not be treated as precluding automatic return of the tools. It is one thing if the rights are requested back fairly soon, so that those with grievances remain able to bring them in the correct forum, but that is not what has happened here.

At the time Fastily resigned, it seems to me that there was enough evidence for someone to have filed a serious complaint with ArbCom about a pattern of poor judgment in his use of the tools. Fastily's admin actions in the first quarter of 2012 were problematic - something that to his credit Fastily appears to acknowledge above, explaining that this was due to having taken on too much and undertaking not repeat the error. That is commendable and may well have resulted in a fresh RfA succeeding. But I remain concerned that the opportunity to bring a formal case is now no longer present (as the issues have become historic). To my mind, this is the sort of situation that bureaucrat discretion as to whether or not to return rights given up in controversial circumstances is designed to deal with. My interpretation of "controversial circumstances" / "under a cloud" would probably extend to this request.

That said, I wish Fastily all the best in his efforts as an admin going forwards. Please don't feel that my views above mean that you don't have my support or that you can't approach me in the future if I can ever be of help. WJBscribe (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful about including Commons activities, pro or con, in determining "cloudiness." It is a whole separate animal, and their cultural norms are uniquely their own. Similar caveats would apply to other sister projects. 28bytes (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons is hardly the wild west. If someone was desysopped for cause on a Wikimedia project, I think that's something we can validly take into account. WJBscribe (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Commons culture is also decidedly different. They desysop "for cause" at a substantially lower threshold than we do. They see the bit more as a position held at the ongoing will of the community, not a lifetime appointment, so a "for cause" desysop there can be for relatively minor things. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this thread yesterday and imagined the 24-hour period would be extended. Fastily has been a helpful hand in the media files departments, where there is certainly a lack of participants, but his administrative actions have always been subject to criticism because his rate of making careless errors is far too high. I particularly remember this incident in 2010, where Fastily deleted a number of pages under R2 despite not meeting the criteria. Some weren't even redirects to begin with, which I pointed out. He went on to retire soon after. Please note that a few days prior, Fastily was subject to a request for mediation, albeit an improper one. Fastily continued to make deletions that were simply wrong, and I pointed those out here in October 2011. I also remember restoring a series of talk pages that were deleted under G8, in spite of them being tagged with {{G8-exempt}} (File talk:SnowballGeography.gif, File talk:Selena-Gomez145.jpg, File talk:Brodeurbook.jpg, File talk:Narnia books.jpg, File talk:Jack LaLanne - Arnold.jpg). This is just what I'm able to pull from my memory at the moment. As a non-administrator, Fastily still shows signs of carelessness. Last month, he tagged various files for lacking evidence of permission without actually checking the sources to verify the license claim (1 2 3 4 5, among others). Simply clicking on the provided sources verified the licenses.

WP:RESYSOP reads: Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. We'll never know if Fastily would have faced sanctions if he didn't resign in 2012, but under no basis can one decide that it wasn't a possibility when evidence suggests the contrary. One can't ignore the behavioral pattern between each instance where Fastily's actions are brought into question and his decision to step away from the admin bit. — ξ^xplicit 04:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Explicit. The decision has been taken and the tools regranted. The Crats have no power to undo our decision, even if every single one of us wanted to. For that reason, (and sorry if this sounds harsh) if you don't like the decision we've made, there's no use complaining here. Your next port of call is probably Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Meta discussion

WJB, moving away from the specifics of Fastilly's request, is there something we could change procedurally that could help in another similar situation? Do you think we ought to revisit some definitions? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[peanut gallery comment] Maybe clarify the meaning of "scrutiny" and/or "sanctions"? Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions talks about evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions: most people here seem to be interpreting that as "evading a situation that had a reasonable chance of losing their tools", but the language is technically much broader than that; it doesn't specify loss of tools, just generic sanctions. It also doesn't say evading the sanctions themselves, but scrutiny that *could* have led to the sanctions. All in all, the language is much more broad than the way people interpreted it in this case. Not that that's necessarily a problem, just that there's a mismatch. The language at WP:ADMIN#Restoration of adminship is even more broad; it just says not in controversial circumstances, which could mean virtually anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we revisit what "under a cloud" means? There seems to be a lot of bureaucrat and non-bureaucrats who offered fairly different interpretations. In terms of considering other projects, I think that's out of our purview. Different projects can have very different norms. Commons has had users who have failed RfA here or are not in good standing on enwp that have been chosen admins. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- all projects have their own way of doing things, and such arrangements are either valuable second chances or work out because an editor gets along better with the community of a different project. If an arrangement works for a specific project, it's not for me to tell them it's bad! Maxim_(talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've always hated the term "under a cloud" and have always interpreted the issue as being a situation of possible/probable sanction where a reasonable person would view the resignation as serving to avoid said sanction. The sanction may not be the full removal, but is certainly stronger than a wrist-slap. Avoiding potential blocking/topic banning would probably count as a sanction as well. -- Avi (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've interpreted it similarly, meaning a sanction stronger than an admonishment or warning (inc. block/tban/iban/bit). Of course, you can only use your best judgement as to the likelihood and get input informally from other crats, like a Crat chat. That already seems to be the natural course. In the end, if there is a reasonable process, the community is going to stand behind you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My view, which I hope I have applied consistently in the past, is that predicting the outcome of a potential RfArb (or similar) takes things one step too far. If concerns have been raised that an ArbCom complaint could have been brought based on sound evidence, controversial circumstance exist. For me, that is the end of the process. I don't think bureaucrats have then been asked to consider - if the matter had come before ArbCom - what the outcome would have been. WJBscribe (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I agree that if the issue is at Arb, that means at risk of bit. To me, it doesn't have to be at Arb to be "under a cloud", and I suppose we are asking you to know/guess common outcomes at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should define "under a cloud" rigorously because any firm definition will undoubtedly fail to account for some obscure type of sanctioning situation. Better to leave this to the bureaucrats. I think they interpreted things reasonably here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• To use the above discussion as an example: The administrator was the subject of a discussion at a noticeboard for their use of administrative tools in a manner which people found problematic. There was no resolution because the administrator resigned their tools mid-way and so conversation stopped. Unless any clarification is specifically to state this behaviour is explicitly under a cloud, there is no point in trying to define it further. If resigning your tools while your use of them is being questioned is *not* under a cloud as it has been interpreted above, then whats the point of having the 'under a cloud' anyway. It certainly wasnt under clear blue skies on a beach sipping a fucking mojito was it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't see that discussion as having had the possibility of having the tools removed. Therefore, I don't see his request back then for removing the tools to be "under a cloud". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically no discussion anywhere except by Arbcom has the possibility of having tools removed as that is a right they have reserved for themselves. So are you saying unless an admin is actively under investigation by Arbcom they will never be under a cloud? Because that would certainly be one way to define it further. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Jimbo still have the power to remove adminship? Of course I doubt he'll ever use it except possibly in an emergency, so it can probably be considered a lapsed power. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:JIMBO, he can do whatever he wants, but controversy always seems to follow him. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want an exhaustive list: Jimbo can desysop with appeal only to himself or ArbCom; the WMF can desysop with appeal only to itself; the sysadmins can desysop with appeal only to themselves or the WMF; and the stewards can desysop in cases of emergency or IAR. And in addition to the bureaucrats' de jure desysop powers, there's unchallenged precedent that they can desysop to self-revert or to revert another crat who's consented to it, and can desysop in cases of emergency or IAR. But most of that's pretty obscure. The general statement "only ArbCom can order a desysop" is true enough for most intents and purposes. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's a reason we don't use the term "under a cloud" in our procedure page, instead having criteria that are somewhat clearer, as explored by Writ Keeper above. That said, WK has correctly noted that the criteria are rather broad ("could") when interpreted in a particular way (perhaps moreso than was intended by the writer) and it probably makes sense to seek community comment in the form of an RFC to see exactly the boundaries we should be using in such cases. I would also point out that the WP:RESYSOP procedure draws it's power from the policy page Wikipedia:Administrators which (again, as noted by WK) has even broader boundaries ("controversial circumstances") that if taken at face value, would have precluded restoring privileges in the present case. I'd suggest removing the "under a cloud" language from the policy page as too vague to be of use and reconciling the procedure page with the policy. –xeno^talk 00:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not a crat chat always for a re-sysop request?

• If we have bureaucrats being provided a 24-hour period to decide whether to grant a re-sysop request or not, then I suggest that the re-sysop request be changed to the format of a crat chat, where bureaucrats get to discuss on one page for 24 hours and more and concur on the step forward, while the community discusses on the talk page. That would be a clearer consensus development process than such a discussion. Lourdes 11:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  There is already a 24 hour mandatory waiting period to allow feedback from the community. The overwhelming majority are non-controversial, so forcing a Crat chat would be overkill. Since instituting the 24 hour period, I can't think of a single instance of a truly controversial resysop. This example above is probably the closest thing and I fail to see how it is truly problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  There have been a few where there was dissent. I agree that it's overkill to mandate one; if one's needed, it could be useful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'd leave it open that any crat may open a 'crat chat for something that needs additional consensus building, but requiring for every request is overkill. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I have two queries. Because I don't know, is there a policy or guideline that allows any crat to open a crat chat in any situation that requires additional consensus building? Is it clear that the current re-sysop has been done with consensus? Thanks. Lourdes 14:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  We don't need a policy or guideline to help the Wikipedia users probably most interested in uncontroversial consensus find consensus - I think it'll just happen if we feel we need it. On your second question, no crat is making a fuss about the current resysop. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I might add that I don't think consensus is required, just like at WP:AE. Any Crat is free to act within the guidelines given without requiring other Crats agree. Considering the position and the tasks, I think this is the right way to handle it. If a Crat can't be trusted to act within those guidelines, they shouldn't be Crat. No additional policy is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's also true. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello 'crats, would someone please review and close: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Wugapodes? I (!voted in it already). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears there is three administrators who are pending desysop now that it is the beginning of the month. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you all for your service.

1. Briangotts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. JeremyA (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorry I haven't been very active, but I'd like to request admin/sysop status back, if possible. Κσυπ Cyp   15:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyp I'm not seeing any policy reasons to deny this. There is a customary 24 hour hold for comments on these type of requests. With only 9 edits in the past 4 years, you certainly are on the light side of activity - please be sure to review current policies and procedures before jumping back in to administrative tasks. Personally, I do hope you will actually be active - we are in need of admins to help with backlogs. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-bureaucrat comment) I appreciate that there is no policy based reason to prohibit this, but it irks me that we will give back administrator user rights so easily to someone who hasn't been around for so long. I don't mean to imply that you don't possess the temperament or character to be an administrator Cyp, but hardly more than 100 edits and no administrator actions taken over the course of the last 10 years, with just 9 edits in the past 5 years, doesn't give me confidence that you could know the current rules and practices well enough to be fully trusted with the administrator toolset, even if you happen to give them a cursory read. It's certainly a fact that you wouldn't pass an RfA today. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why we need to rethink our inactivity policy for administrators. At the very least, we should require one administrative action rather than just an edit over a certain period of time in order to retain the ability to request resysop. If you let your driver's license expire and don't renew it for five years, you have to take the driver's test again. The same philosophy applies here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators is right around the corner if you want to start an RfC on changing the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming any pending RfC will not influence this request? If so, there's no great urgency. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new RfC today would not put this specific request on hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Just doesn't want the page cluttered up with complaints. Don't worry, I suspect that there will be plenty concerning this one. Quite intentional (and permissible) gaming of a weak process. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyp, I really can't see how you could possibly know our current policies and guidelines. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyp you said you were curious about what the Admin functions looked like and 3 editors responded supporting you, one of them a current Admin User:Jimfbleak that in fairness I'll ping (the other two editors aren't active). Doug Weller talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, Cyp didn't use the tools much after being promoted. 2005 was the last year in which he made even a hundred edits. I assume that Cyp is acting in good faith here, but the best thing right now would be for him to withdraw his request for a resysop. Furthermore, we very much need to have a community discussion about our resysop policies for long-term inactive former admins. Lepricavark (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this [re-sysop] request will face substantial opposition from the community and be a rare instance where a re-sysop was done under a cloud. Mkdw^talk 01:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about the inactivity policy at WT:Administrators. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing presented so far, in particular as related to admin activity, that preludes a resysop. Unless evidence can be produced that it was the desysop was under a cloud (which I would be surprised by as it's somewhat easy to check given the paucity of edits prior to the desysop), or there are other extenuating circumstances brought to this forum, Cyp would be resysoped after 24 hour wait period is over. As xaosflux mentioned above, this page is not right forum to rehash the inactivity policy. Maxim_(talk) 01:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I understand the applicable policies, I believe it would be appropriate to ask Cyp if he has any comments to the responses above, before acting on his request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, how do we know this is the same person who went completely inactive from December 2014 to November 2016? Lately, we've had many accounts compromised who re-used passwords on other sites. It's almost guaranteed at least one inactive administrator account could be compromised, given the fact that even heavily active admins and Jimbo Wales screwed up and re-used passwords. How do we know it isn't this account when this editor was sporadically editing up until 2014 with no interest in reclaiming the mop, then reappeared just after administrator accounts were being targeted? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possible for a bureaucrat to be satisfied that the account is not compromised, as required by the policy. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that the inactivity policy explicitly states "so long as there are no issues with their identity" after the note about re-sysopping. I think it's reasonable to need confirmation here given recent events and how out-of-the-blue this request is. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You could ask such a question for every case of a resysop with minimal activity. Would you be able articulate why, in this specific case, a reason as to why you think there are issues as to the identity of Cyp? Maxim_(talk) 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

1. I would agree that we should ask that question in every case of a resysop with such severely minimal activity.
2. This is unusual because normally inactive administrators who request resysop return far sooner than is the case here. When this editor was active, WP:User account security didn't exist. Wikipedia:Compromised accounts didn't exist. Wikipedia:Personal security practices didn't exist. As far as I can tell, we had no recommendations related to security of an account on the project. Additionally, as this account was active when we lived in a much less digital world, the importance of account security and not re-using passwords across multiple sites was largely unknown. We can reasonably say there is a much higher risk that such insecure activity took place on an administrator account in 2003 than in 2010.
3. Recent events show us that individuals are actively trying to compromise administrator accounts and use them to commit high-profile vandalism that's incredibly harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. They are doing this largely through exploiting the types of vulnerabilities I mentioned above by trying passwords used on other hacked sites. So the risk of a vulnerability translates clearly into a risk of an actual compromised account at this time.
4. This account resurfaced after nearly two years of complete inactivity at almost exactly the time accounts were being compromised. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If such a question applies to every similar resysosp, then maybe those similar resysosps shouldn't happen. If there is a reasonable question about user identity, I don't see how anyone can be satisfied that the account is not compromised. The policy doesn't require evidence that the account is compromised. As for this specific user, his brief resurrection shortly after numerous admin accounts were compromised, and silence during this discussion, is concerning. I don't particularly care though. I would not be affected at all if the account turns out to be compromised. I'm just adding my opinion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) The concerns about the account being possibly compromised may suffer from the base rate fallacy. Based on the timing of the return, the chances of this being a compromised account are much higher, but it does not tell whether those chances were high to start with. Maybe they were so low that the estimated risk for this particular account to be compromised is acceptable; maybe they were so high that no account ever should be resysopped. One can rationalize that the acceptable risk was implicitly set high enough not to trigger the latter case (why have a resysop policy otherwise), but it does not help in that exact case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I left a talk message at User_talk:Cyp referring to this thread. Will leave it to my fellow 'crats if this warrants extra time or not. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider, I think there's enough concern raised that at least extra time should be considered while fully looking at the circumstances. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob brings up a compelling point. The inactivity policy does specify to only resysop when there are no concerns about identity. In this case, I would argue that there are nontrivial concerns about identity. The user has made 1 edit (besides this resysop request) in the last 2 years. How do we know it's them? There's nothing to even go off of. I don't understand what interpretation of the policy could lead one to conclude otherwise. If merely asking to be resysopped is enough to establish identity, then why do we even have that clause in the policy? A clever impersonator would simply keep their mouths shut and ask for the bit back. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, how do we know it's not the same person? The data isn't kept long enough to run a checkuser, so really all we have to go on is their word and WP:AGF. ansh666 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks for ping. FWIW, I don't support straight re-activation, given the extremely low levels of activity. I wouldn't expect it myself if I were in the same position. And given the recent problems with admin accounts being hacked, "how do we know it's not" seems inadequate. What's the point of two- factor authentication if "I'm back" is sufficient? Some editing and AVP would help to restore credibility and perhaps support ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned that 2 'crats commenting in this thread that there is no policy reason to question this return request when there quite clearly are major concerns relating to identity. However, the rather ambiguously closed RFC isn't that helpful in terms of clarity in the matter. #15 seems to apply, rather than the more expressly worded #16. Whatever, identity needs to be positive, not by default. Leaky Caldron 10:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How are there major concerns relating to identity? Unless I have missed something, no direct evidence that the account is compromised has been presented. Rob pointed out some interesting facts, but they are all completely generic. There is nothing specific to this request except the request itself. No opinion offered on other aspects right now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There are several expressions of concern raised above. In my book there is no such thing as a non-major concern about identity - it is either not a concern at all or it is a major concern. Leaky Caldron 11:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that there are any concerns about identity here that wouldn't also apply to literally every other user. Sam Walton (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For those raising "identity" concerns - what is an example of actions that would satisfy your concern? (Here are some things that are not available: checkuser, email, public keys, 2fa, committed identity). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe how about you even considering identity as a potential concern and flagging it up initially? Lack of an action to take doesn't mean ignoring part of the policy. Failing to see it as a concern is the concern I have about your approach. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Streping in as closer of the RFC I closed, that User:Leaky caldron mentioned, this would be a good time to apply "The community has chosen bureaucrats for their experience and judgement. The community feels that bureaucrat discretion and common sense should not be discouraged." If I were a burueacrat, these concerns would carry significant weight in my decision to re sysop this user.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding committed identity, I've sent an e-mail to the address in your PGP key. I'm not sure, but it might be enough to answer the identity concerns. Κσυπ Cyp   15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) I concur with the second comment above by both Samwalton9 and Maxim. The second through fourth numbered point by BU Rob13 would apply equally to all those requesting resysop after extremely low activity going forward, making this case not unique.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: While I still am not seeing a solid policy based reason to deny this request, I am not currently comfortable approving it personally - but respect that another bureaucrat may. Had Cyp been a non-administrator and was asking for restoration of a lesser-included permission such as template-editor or account-creator I would likely deny such a request due to the lengthy inactivity, with a suggestion to return to editing first. (There is currently more discretion afforded to administrators dealing with these non-elected security groups.) The community expectations for administrators may certainly change over time, and the policy may be in need of refreshing after a review. As far as the question of identity: I do not believe there has been anything presented to show an affirmative problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an attempt at a back-door desysop that is simply not supported by policy as is, neither in spirit by the letter. (This is why I never do these "procedural" desysops - I consider it to be a lot of make-work without much benefit when the admin has two years to just ask for the bit to be flipped again.) In terms of concerns as to whether the account is compromised, there are a few reasons why the account is most likely not compromised. As pertains to the November 2016 events, they are based on an individual sharing a password across several websites including Wikipedia. There is nothing in the contributions history of Cyp that would suggest a link beyond Wikimedia; furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it gets quite unlikely that a three-letter username could be readily available on another website. Just because there is a "Maxim" on another website doesn't make it me (it shouldn't be me in fact) -- similar idea applies for the name "Cyp". If we make an assumption that Cyp did not change his password over the past 10 years (not far-fetched given the activity levels), then a weak password would have been found in May 2007, when, if i recall correctly, a dictionary attack was run by the developers after a series of admin accounts were compromised because they had passwords along the lines of "password" or "fuckyou" (if memory serves me corrected at least one of these two was an actual password to admin account!). There is an interest in polyhedra images and familiarity with a deleted file in the most-recent edit, so it is more likely than not that the account is not compromised.

We don't desysop administrators because of a suspicion that they are out of touch. Had Cyp made one edit in 2015 we would not be having this discussion. By not resysoping now, it would be a back-door desysop for perceived out-of-touchness, which would never happen directly. I don't wish to set a precedent by enacting a desysop by pocket veto. Maxim_(talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

In 42 minutes you can press the button.... Leaky Caldron 14:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We elect bureaucrats for their discretion and judgement, but in fact they are as their title suggests. As a result, very little of their function couldn't be performed by a robot. This is not an "attempt" at anything, Maxim. It is a group of editors raising legitimate concerns and being dismissed in favour of policy wonkery. Can we not at least wait for Cyp to respond and acknowledge that maybe he has some reading up to do, considering he's made three admin actions ever and the last was eleven years ago almost to the day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that I have some reading up to do. Κσυπ Cyp   15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyp, that's a good start. I can't speak for others, but certainly I don't intend to impugn your motives. But perhaps you can see why your request has raised an eyebrow since you haven't played an active role in the community for such a long time and that you never showed much interest in the admin tools when you were active? Could you tell us if anything in particular has prompted your return and your desire to reclaim the tools? Do you intend to be an active member of the community again? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

At the time, I think the ability to 1-click revert edits (instead of manually copying/pasting from an old revision) was reserved for admins, so that was an admin activity I did use while active. Seems that that particular thing isn't reserved for admins anymore, though. I've been busy, and I think I got automatically logged out in the month that there was a comment about me losing the admin flag if not doing anything within a month, so I didn't see it until after that month. I thought I should ask for it back sooner, but I ended up procrastinating a bit. I don't know how much time I'll have, but I intend to become active again, I hope soon. Κσυπ Cyp   16:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been debundled since, see WP:ROLLBACK. Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Maxim. If the community wants to either tighten the inactivity requirements or grant bureaucrats the discretion to decline re-sysop requests without some indication that the former admin has returned to active editing, then we will of course abide by that. But we can't make up a pretext for denying an allowed-by-policy resysop request simply because some editors think the current activity requirements are too lax. Based on the edits Cyp has made I'm not seeing a cause for doubting their identity that couldn't equally be applied to any editor with a similar activity pattern. I would agree, though, that we shouldn't rush to flip the bit while discussion is ongoing. Let's see what the other 'crats have to say. 28bytes (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The community has chosen human beings to do this job, rather than having these requests fulfilled by bots. That means using good judgement and applying WP:IAR in extreme cases. At the very least, please wait for Cyp to explain why he wants to be an admin again. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to ask the same question. Cyp hasn't been an active member of the community for over a decade. Why does he suddenly want the tools back? And would it really be problematic for the crats to invoke IAR for the sake of the community? I understand that this is a slippery slope and a potential trendsetter, but the community does not stand to benefit from giving the tools to someone with practically no recent editing history. I'm not convinced it would be bad to set a trend of denying the bit to long-term inactive ex-admins. Of course, if the crats do proceed with the resysop, I suspect it will further fuel the efforts to tighten the existing policy. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

One possible solution would be for the 'crats to resysop, but for they and the stewards to keep an eye on Cyp for the first week, or especially the first day, with a hair-trigger on the desysop button in case of anything fishy. Heck, someone can set up an IRC bot that tracks any admin action he makes for the first week, if they're really that concerned. I know there are some unlogged kinds of admin actions, like viewdeleted, but there's already plenty of security flaws in the way that system is set up. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure dodgy actions would be easy enough to spot. Using IAR as a justification to not resysop is a poor idea. How is insufficient activity quantified? Right now, it is three consecutive years with no edits per community consensus. I don't see why the definition should be changed on the spot like this. Would bureaucrats draw the line case-by-case? The course of action I would suggest would be to a. action the resysop and then b. revisit inactivity limits. The points brought up in this discussion are certainly all with merit, but they really do belong more in a discussion relating to tightening inactivity limits. I definitely understand the concerns coming with such a long spell of inactivity, but I am not comfortable changing the rules on the fly like this. If the inactivity rules must be fixed, which this situation suggests, let's do it properly. I agree with 28bytes to let the discussion go longer - let's where we stand after net 48 hours has elapsed since the request. To echo xaosflux's comment, albeit backwards, I am at a stage where I'm uncomfortable not approving the request. Maxim_(talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Maxim. Policy and precedent here is clear, and we don't invoke IAR for completely unfounded speculation. Should people desire that the policy be changed, they should start an RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Maxim to clarify, I'm not uncomfortable from a policy point of view and agree this is the wrong venue to change policy. Cyp has replied to some comments above - I'm really not sure what else we should expect from him. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I can appreciate the potential concerns raised by people above, but I don't see any sound policy reason to deny the bit in this case. He clearly qualifies under the current policy. If people want to change the policy, they can open an RfC. Otherwise, I see no valid reason to deny the re-twiddling. I'm sure plenty of people will keep an eye out to see if the bit is being abused at all. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any policy that says we have to do this? If not, what good reason is there to do it? It exposes the project to risk, has no upside I can think of, and is clearly opposed by a significant number of the non-bureaucrats who have commented so far. WJBscribe (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think policy compels us to return admin tools to Cyp, and I will not be doing so. In support of my decision, I would point out the following::

1. Bureaucrats have been given the discretion to return admin tools absent controversial circumstances. We are not robots and are expected to exercise good judgment in exercising that discretion. Such minimal activity is of obvious concern and to my mind can rise to the level of controversy. This is not the case of a once active editor who went away, or who made low use of the admin tools whilst being active as an editor. A decade with about 100 edits and no admin activity should be enough for us to say that controversial circumstances exist.
2. I think concerns raised above as to who controls the account are non trivial. This request follows a spate of accounts being compromised and - given the sustained inactivity - we have no way of confirming that we are returning the tools to the right person.
3. We have WP:IAR for a reason. This is an obvious case. I do not see how Wikipedia will realistically be improved by returning the tools to Cyp, and the risk is obvious. The discussion above shows support for invoking WP:IAR in this instance. As a matter of common sense, I cannot justify returning admin tools to this account.
4. Finally, we are not compelled to act. If no bureaucrat is willing to return the tools, that is the end of the matter - unless the community choses to appoint a new bureaucrat who will do it.

I therefore will not be returning admin rights to Cyp and urge my fellow bureaucrats not to do so either. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A last (and this is a genuinely heartfelt comment and not a jibe) this is a very sensible 'crat opinion that sums up not only some of the community concerns so far expressed but the actual responsibility of the 'crat role as vested in them by the community. Leaky Caldron 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If ever there was a time that IAR, a pillar fundamental principal, was going to be utilized, I can see no better time than to seek a community consensus. This effectively unburdens the bureaucrats from operating beyond their purview and ultimately leaves it in the hands of the community, the very people who appointed the bureaucrats, and asks that the core requirement of adminship, the community's trust, be assessed. Community consensus is our most powerful form of governance on the English Wikipedia and no community set policy can withstand it. Mkdw^talk 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: Cyp has provided some additional identification information that strengthens his account identity claim, this may include some private information. Additional details have been sent to the bureaucrat's mailing list. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on the information posted there, I reiterate my lack of concern regarding the possibility of the account being compromised. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That being said, I can definitely understand the concerns being raised here. The extreme lack of activity over the last many years is the biggest one, in my opinion, due to how much has changed over the last while. Hopefully, Cyp will come and let people know how he wishes to proceed in light of these concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  I've reviewed the email, which - to my mind - strongly mitigates any concern that the account may have been compromised (it comes in the form of a Wikipedia:Committed identity). From a strict policy read (absent ignoring rules), it appears to me that Cyp is eligible for resysop. With respect to WJBscribe's comment about controversy: I would respectfully point out that the controversy that precludes resysopping is controversy at the time of desysop, not at the time of resysop (unless WJBscribe means to say that his low activity at the time of his desysop is controversial in and of itself - I don't think this scans because then this could apply to any request following a period of inactivity, effectively making procedural desysops for inactivity permanent). That being said, when I click Special:Contributions/Cyp, I am presented with a list of 250 contributions the earliest of which is from before I registered my account. That, coupled with the fact that I am no longer highly active (and thus, unable to closely watch Cyp as they resume their adminship - not having a large body of former adminship work to review) leaves me uncomfortable in carrying out this request. I would be interested to hear from bureaucrats who were appointed in 2004, closer to the time of Cyp's adminship (@Kingturtle, Pakaran, Cecropia, Warofdreams, and UninvitedCompany:). I would suggest that any bureaucrat that carries out this request be available to work closely with Cyp in the coming weeks and months, should the editor actually return to activity and undertake administrative actions. –xeno^talk 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  I agree that the information sent to the bureaucrat list provides fairly convincing evidence that the person now in control of the account is the same person that controlled it in 2008, and therefore it goes a long way towards addressing the third of my four bulleted points above. I remain of the view that a resysop is not appropriate for the other reasons I gave.
  I don't think it makes sense to adopt "a strict policy read" in a way that leads us to a conclusion that none of us favour (no bureaucrat has yet opined that they think Cyp regaining the tools would be good for the project). We are entrusted to exercise judgment and I think what amounts to controversial circumstances needs to be considered in the round. I appreciate that other bureaucrats have been reluctant to look at circumstances after the desysop, but that seems illogical to me. In an extreme example - are we required to return the tools to someone who resigned the tools uncontroversially, but has since amassed a block log as long as my arm for edit warring? I don't think asking the community to have an RfC to specify with greater precision when & when they want the tools returned is necessary. If the community is unhappy with how we exercise the discretion, they can take it away from us - either individually or collectively - but I think we're being asked to make tough calls such as this one by applying good judgment and common sense, not a rulebook. WJBscribe (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't have much new to say, but am opining since I was specifically tagged here. Being inactive myself, as well as regarding this as an unusual case, I am not going to check the box. That said, Cyp's RFA (which predates my own) was far from exceptional in passing at the time, and I would not object to another 'crat choosing to resysop. In fact, I would be supportive, because I dislike the notion of extending the rules regarding inactivity removal on the fly. -- Pakaran 01:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  I've just seen this so, to respond to the ping, Wikipedia culture was very different back in 2003 (I joined shortly after Cyp's RfA). The guiding principle of RfAs was that they were "no big deal", and that anyone trusted by the much smaller community would be approved; trust was demonstrated by a few months of constructive editing. In the meantime, I see that Maxim has restored the bit, and I agree with the reasoning. Warofdreams talk 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Before anything, having reviewed the information forwarded to the bureaucrats mailing list which took the form of a WP:committed identity, I've seen the verification by xaosflux, and makes it well-nigh impossible that anyone other than User:Cyp made the request, so I do not believe anyone should be worried about malicious or improper access. That being said, however, to me this is not a standard request for returns. Looking over User:Cyp's editing history, he had very, very rarely used the tool, basically three deletions in 2005. There is no record of any blocks or protections. Also, his RfA was in the early days of WP when the community was small enough that people were separated by many fewer degrees and three supports was all that was needed. That isn't a reason to remove rights, but it isn't as clear an example of community trust as more recent (even as of 2005) RfAs are. Perhaps it is a function of Wikipedia's growth, but there are many more people voicing concerns here than voiced opinions back in 2003. Therefore, in my opinion, his overall absence from Wikipedia for most of the decade and his near nonexistent administrative toolset usage make me personally uncomfortable with returning the tools without Cyp's re-familiarizing himself with the WIkipedia of today (sadly, very different than 2004) and running for RfA. So I personally will not be flipping this bit. However, I have no reason to believe Cyp would abuse any rights afforded to him and would have given him rollback (the right he mentioned) myself had not Xaos beat me to it . -- Avi (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I can completely understand and agree with most of the points raised above by other people regarding the return of the tools, but I don't see why would Cyp abuse the admin tools if they are given back. If they wanted to misuse it, they could have done it anytime before when they had the tools. I believe that Cyp has good intentions of helping and improving the project in any way they can (after all this is a volunteer project) and a low amount of activity does not mean that they can't be trusted. I would therefore like to express my support that Cyp be resysopped. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Upon being desysopped, Cyp was assured that "the userright will be restored" upon request. IAR should have been invoked then to rule out a routine reinstatement, not now; shifting the goalposts at this point is very unfair. The security worries have apparently been allayed, and many of the other concerns, while perfectly valid, could just as easily apply to many other barely-active admins who are at no risk of losing the bit. I recognize that it's increasingly unlikely a bureaucrat will come along to flip the switch, but if it helps, I'd commit to working alongside Cyp for a while to help bring them back up to speed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Julian, how long will this mentoring last? It's all very well to say you'll do this "for a while" but it may be a while before Cyp does much It seems likely based on past behavior patterns that Cyp will make few (if any) uses of the admin rights over a number of years. You may be long retired by time problems arise, and it's not as if you could then do much if there were problems. Restoring rights because a mentoring arrangement has been lined up would be an example of WP:IAR - after all, there is no precedent for making the return of rights conditional on such an arrangement. Sorry, but I don't think knowing that you are going to hold his hand addresses the underlying issues. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand your point about IAR. Established policy sanctions the restoration of adminship here, and there is precedent for returning the bit to highly inactive former admins. In August, we cheerfully resysopped a user who had made a mere 100 edits in the previous seven years. I'll grant that Cyp's is an even more extreme case, but not by very much. We wouldn't be reinstating Cyp because of my mentorship offer, but because policy allows it, and because we always need more active admins; if Cyp says they intend to become more involved in the administrative side of the project once again, I think we should AGF and give them a chance to lend a helping hand. You're right in that I can't guarantee to always be around in the event of something going wrong - I can only endeavor to make sure Cyp has all the tools and resources they need to re-integrate into the community. This period of collaboration would last as long as it takes for me (and my peers) to be confident that Cyp is every bit as familiar with current policies and practices as any newly appointed, polished admin. I agree it isn't particularly imperative that we restore adminship here, but if we do, I'll do my best to ensure the project benefits. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This may come off the wrong way, but I mean this with the greatest respect possible. The message also thanked Cyp for his "past administrative efforts", of which there were none. So I don't think the standard message should be regarded as an infallible final word. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a generic pleasantry, not a description of policy like the part of the message I identified. Besides... "administrative efforts" go far beyond logged admin actions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how much I used the admin tools when I was most active, but I think it was actually a lot more than the 3 logged actions mentioned earlier, and than the 4 times listed at [1] and 16 times listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_log_archive/November_2003. Κσυπ Cyp   05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I did not think that your activity was old enough to predate the logs. I apologize for my previous statement. Still, if your period of activity with the admin tools predated logs of it, then I don't understand why you feel confident that you're good to go. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd tend to use common sense, erring on the side of inaction. I'd of course check what all the relevant rules I can find are, especially before doing anything non-obvious. I'd hope someone would point out if I did anything wrong despite that. There's lots of things I wouldn't be feeling good to go on, I'd be staying away from those things until I do. Κσυπ Cyp   06:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that Juliancolton has stated he is willing to mentor Cyp while he gets back up to speed, I think that's enough to flip the bit. While we are given discretion in what we do (as mentioned by WJBscribe), this particular policy really doesn't give any leeway with regard to returning the bit as long as it was not removed "under a cloud". As there has been absolutely no evidence of any sort of negatively-charged water vapor, I see no valid course other than returning the bit. If people want to start an RfC to change the policy, that is fine, but as it is currently written, we have no solid or valid reason to withhold the bit (short of IAR, which would be a really, really shaky application in this case). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Since a number of bureaucrats have given assurances about Cyp's identity, Cyp himself is aware of his need to bring himself up to speed, Juliancolton has offered to mentor, and everyone involved in this thread is aware of the need to keep on eye on Cyp's adminning, the downside seems to have been significantly decreased, so perhaps it's safe enough for a 'cret to return the bit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the return of rights to Cyp. I think the spirit of the policy (if not the letter) does justifies not returning the bit - these are circumstances of controversy understood in any normal way. Getting admin rights and barely using them whilst making token occasional edits to hang on to them is not what the community expects of administrators. We should not reward gaming the activity requirements (3 edits in 2012, 2 edits in 2013, 2 edits in 2014). Even if you don't agree that the policy covers this, I think that invoking IAR is far from being "shaky" (as Nihonjoe suggests) - I think this is a clear cut case. We would be returning admin rights to an account without any credible basis for believing they will be used competently, following a decade of inactivity. Not only would Cyp fail an RfA, he would do so spectacularly. To return the tools in such circumstances would to my mind be a failure to properly exercise our discretion in a manner that accords with community expectations. Whilst I agree that policy allows a bureaucrat to return the tools to Cyp - it does not mandate it - and I will be deeply disappointed if it happens. WJBscribe (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally its understood that the 'spirit' of the policies governing crat actions is that they do not get creative and that they apply wikipedia policy as it is laid out and determined by community consensus. While I have concerns about the length of time Cyp has been inactive, they like every other editor is perfectly capable of asking for help and guidance from their peers. I get a lot more worried when users with advanced tools start thinking they should not apply the policies as they are written and making stuff up in order to justify the result they want. This case is far less problematic than the other recent resysop where an Admin was re-granted their tools despite giving them up under controversial circumstances AND being sanctioned on a sister project for the exact same problematic behaviour that led to them being dragged to a noticeboard in the first place. Here we have policy supporting a resysop but you are finding reasons not supported by policy to do so, the previous there were actual policy-backed reasons not to and it was done anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is no need to "get creative", then inactivity resysops should be automatic and not have any discussion. A bot can easily determine if they were desysoppped for inactivity, whether they have made an edit within a year and whether they have remained active within policy which would automatically return their tools. If it's black and white, this needs to happen. If it's not, then there's a reason why bureaucrats were elected to their position. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

They almost are always done 'automatically' in the sense that the request is made, its acted upon 24 hours later with zero quibbles. The only issue in this case is the length of inactivity (not a criteria for resysopping) and spurious concerns about identity (could be levelled at every single user inactive for X period of time) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Would you support giving administrator rights to a brand new user on the basis that you trust them to read the rules before using the tools? Because the arguments you're making could equally be made to say that all editors should be given the rights no questions asked based on the assumption that they'll read up before doing anything. To re-phrase what WJBscribe said above, if Cyp ran at RfA it would be closed as NOTNOW within the hour. Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: No, and fortunately the policy for *granting* admin rights is suitably robust that it would support that. The policies for *re-granting* admin rights when removed for inactivity say no such thing. That the two are different is a matter for the community to resolve at an RFC to change the policies concerned, not the crats to impose on whim. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The policy being relied upon states After removal due to inactivity Former administrators returning to Wikipedia may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion (after a minimum 24 hour wait) as long as there are no issues with their identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances. The resysopping will be listed at the list of resysopped users. The key word highlighted in bold is may - not will - 'may'. It does not state automatic or de facto entitlement. This clearly allows for 'crat discretion. When this is done as appears likely, it will represent an all time low in bureaucratic nonsense. Just 2 weeks ago the 'crats refused to pass a good RfA volunteer candidate with 138 plus support !votes who likely failed by a tiny margin to secure the necessary support. They are now willing to "return" (is that even the right word here?) tools to someone who, frankly, has no proven competence whatever in the modern era and received the tools via a vote of 3 over 13 years ago! Had it not been for a single alert received in October relating to a long distant contribution they would not have given their soon to expire so called rights a second thought. It is totally brazen hat collecting to turn up here and request powerful tools they will not be able to use without being mentored. If mentoring is a service available there are a dozens more productive candidates, including the failed RfA from 3 weeks ago. That the community will review this situation for the future I have no doubt, but the broad lack of 'crat understanding shown here is concerning. Leaky Caldron 12:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the differences between this situation and the CRATCHAT a few weeks ago is that, by the way we have evolved these procedures, it takes a majority of bureaucrats in a CRATCHAT to agree that a consensus exists to close an RfA as successful, whereas only one bureaucrat has to decide to exercise their discretion to flip the bit in this context. Maybe we need to consider if that should continue. But as to your broader point, I agree - it is obvious to me which of the two editors has more community support to be an administrator, and yet we have now given the rights to the wrong one in my opinion. WJBscribe (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been gaming the activity requirements, as I wasn't aware of them. The first I heard of anything related was apparently in 2014, when I replied to the first desysop notice, which I thought was just intended to check for deceased admins (for there to be less admin accounts to guess the password of), not to check for insufficiently active ones. Κσυπ Cyp   12:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As an Admin. you are required to read AND understand. Deceased is not mentioned in the notifications and only once in passing in the blue links. Leaky Caldron 12:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Leaky. If Cyp needs mentoring to be brought up to speed, we should not be giving him the tools. Common sense should prevail here. This is not about crats acting on whim, for it can be clearly seen in this thread that the opposition to re-granting the bits has been vocalized primarily by non-crats such as myself. We are asking crats to exercise discretion here. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. From a strict reading of policy, there's no reason to deny resysopping and Cyp has engaged here which assuages most of my concerns about an ulterior motive. On the other, he hasn't been an active member of the community for many years and is hopelessly unqualified for the position. In an ideal world Cyp would withdraw this request and maybe come back in a few months after familiarising himself with the way things work in 2016 Wikipedia. That seems unlikely so the rights should probably be restored and we just have to hope that Cyp has the sense to look before he leaps, and in the meantime we should work on a new policy to deal with scenarios like this in future. After all, before the inactivity policy Cyp would have had access to adminship in perpetuity just by virtue of having been around a long time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Decision by Maxim

The TL;DR of this comment is that I have restored the bit.

Out of the several bureaucrats that have commented on this request, only WJBscribe is firmly against returning the bit. Several bureaucrats are not against returning but do not wish to do so themselves. The paucity of edits and actions in the last 10 years is definitely of concern to me. However, I feel that making up rules on the spot is a worse decision than returning the bit, and for that reason, I have restored the bit. For everyone interested in admin inactivity, [2] should be of particular interest. You will find that similar examples are not uncommon: it ranges from admins consistently not managing 50 edits in the last year, to a handful of edits per year for the past several years. As much as I don't want to single anyone out, I must comment that while Cyp would be on the more extreme end of inactivity, comparable editing histories over the past few years definitely exist.

I would like to further point out two discussions, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins, and Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 13#Restoration of the tools (proposal). In the first discussion, the one-year inactivity rule was approved, largely in response to questions as to account security. In the second, the three-year inactivity rule was approved. Note that in the second discussion, going on a case-by-case basis via bureaucrat discretion was thoroughly opposed. The consensus from these discussions was more towards removal being a procedural action.

If we must draw a line on inactivity -- and that's something to strongly consider -- then it ought to be done properly, that is, not by a bureaucrat noticeboard discussion, and via RFC as was done in previous, similar cases. Useful proposals would be setting more rigorous activity limits and criteria for resysop. While I speculate a bit here as I cannot process all the data from the adminstats link, I think if you were to desysop all admins with less than ~50 edits + actions in a calendar year, you'd probably reduce the admin corps to levels where yearly reconfirmations may well be feasible, and thereby potentially breaking the RfA logjam as it would more easy-out and easy-in. Just a thought. Note that there's a discussion on this topic going on at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Maxim_(talk) 16:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Whilst I disagree with and regret your decision, I respect it. These are not easy calls to make. WJBscribe (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WJBscribe wrote what I was thinking. We should now move on to an RfC. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Phenomenally late to this party, sorry, but I agree with much of Maxim's thought process and definitely agree with the decision. I also agree with everyone who said it wasn't easy. As ever, I'll watch any developing community consensus on these matters with interest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the timeline of Supports and Opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem.

• On 22 December, there were 7 Supports and 8 Opposes.
• On 23 December, there were 6 Supports and 10 Opposes.

The current day is not over yet but the Opposes till this time outnumber the Supports again. I have a request for clarification on two queries:

1. Will the crats have a discussion on whether to extend this Rfa beyond its slated closure time?
2. If yes, will this be a public discussion through say a crat chat or will this be discussed privately?

If the answer is no to extending this Rfa, that's fine by me too. Thanks. Lourdes 11:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Any single bureaucrat may decide to close, hold, formally extend, restart, or move the RfA to 'crat chat. The content of the RfA discussion would be the primary factor. Through inaction of all of us, the RfA can be informally extended - that situation does not typically extend beyond a day. We strive for transparency and 'crat chats are normally open and on-wiki. Private discussions are rarely held for crats - unless there is something that would invovle arbcom, checkusers, etc - I don't see a private discussion being needed in this case. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lourdes 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than renames involving privacy concerns, we do not discuss bureaucrat actions off-wiki. You can always expect transparent explanations/discussions of our actions here in public, and if some of us disagree we will make that clear and explain why. One of my greatest frustrations with this project over the years has been the amount of discussion that has moved onto private forums. It is understandable where serous privacy issues are involved. It is not if it is done to avoid public scrutiny or to hide internal disagreements. I hope bureaucrats never do so - and hopefully having WP:CRATCHATs on-wiki reinforces that goal. WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The most recent chat is a perfect example - we don't always agree 100% but do strive for transparency. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now closed this RfA as successful. Giving that the question was raised here, I think it best to explain why I didn't extend the duration of the RfA (beyond the 2 hours or so after the scheduled end time that had already elapsed). Whilst exceptional circumstances can justify extending the length of an RfA, it is my firm view that they need to be exceptional. The two examples that spring to mind are evidence of improper canvassing (in which case more time may be needed to dilute its effect) or the emergence of new evidence that came to light late in the discussion (in which case participants may need time to consider whether it affects their stated position) - I have expressed some previous thoughts on the issue here.
Neither applied to this case. Lourdes points above to evidence of a late swing in opinion, but the newer opposers largely cited (and expressly endorsed) the same points that had been raised early in the RfA by others. Indeed, several made it clear that they had been watching for some time and waiting to make a decision. The discussion ran for the amount of time mandated by the community, there were no exceptional circumstances calling for extra time, and a clear consensus was reached. WJBscribe (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

An absolutely appropriate close. Thanks for clarifying. Lourdes 07:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

My only caveat is that given the time of year this RfA took place in, when many people have priorities other than Wikipedia because of various holidays, combined with the very strong ending trend in the number of opposes, a decision to extend would, I think, have been quite defensible The moral here, it seems to me, is to tell people not to mull over their !voting decisions for too long if they have reservations, for fear that legitimate concerns will be pushed to the side if they aren't registered early enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, that was just the expression of my opinion, I'm not asking for any action of any sort. Perhaps in the future, no RfA should start between December 15 and January 3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector's RFA started December 20. It has two more days to go and currently stands as the 9th most participated RFA of the year putting it in the top 25% percentile. In the last 24 hours there were an additional 10 support votes (between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day). Using that rate of participation, we can project Ivanvector's RFA to end up in the top 15% percentile for the year. Likewise, Ad Orientem's RFA began December 18 and closed December 25. That RFA was the 7th most participated RFA of the year in the top 20% percentile. In 2015, the RFAs that closed December 20 and 23 were among the highest participated of the year as well. This may suggest that late December is a relatively high point in participation at RFA. I can only assume because while people tend to spend time with family, they also have time off from work or school. December has always had a high number of RFA candidates as well which also suggests people select it as a suitable time for themselves as well. Mkdw^talk 23:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are very good points. The difference in the two RfAs may lie in the fact that IV's RfA was basically all supports, while AO's started out primarily as supports, while opposes grew relatively slowly at first but then consistently after a time, so that the trend was most definitely heading toward the 75% mark when it was closed. It's my observation that there is something of a community social stigma about !voting against RfAs (I'm discounting obvious NOTNOWs and other trivial examples), and if this is indeed the case, then the holiday period may inhibit a true cross-section of community feeling. In any case, I don't see a down-side to a "no-go" zone around the holidays -- what practical difference does it make if someone becomes an admin on January 11 instead of on December 22? None that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the correlation between the dates mentioned and the inhibiting of a true cross-section of community feeling. Ad Orientem's RFA seemed to gain even more opposition the closer to holidays. Secondly, it's not the first RFA to see a last minute surge of opposition. Hawkeye7's January RFA comes to mind; they received 70% of their opposes (67 oppose !votes) in the last three days of the RFA. Nearly a third of those oppose !votes (21) occurred within the last 24 hours of the RFA. If the stigma exists about opposing RFAs, the holidays seem to have no affect on it as it occurs equally during and not-during holidays.

Creating a no go zone during the time when people are seemingly the most available to both run and participate in RFA is a downside. Mkdw^talk 20:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Godsy's RfA received a last-minute surge in support votes that pushed it into the discretionary range. Funny how nobody brought up an extension. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) By a bizarre coincidence I came back to make a first edit to Wikipedia in a couple of years ONE DAY after my bit was withdrawn! I have been busy in a new job but have more time to be active in editing and admin tasks now (though I expect I will not be as active as I used to be at AN/I.) My home city of Hull is UK City of Culture in 2017 and I expect this is where I will be making most of my edits. I realise from reading the discussion above that these requests are not necessarily automatic and would be happy to answer any questions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: No issues here, and a very welcome return from me. Our procedures mandate a 24 hour wait for editors or crats to raise any possible issues, but I'd love to be the one that returns your bit tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I see no issues with returning the bit after the waiting period. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, had they edited before I pulled it yesterday it would still be there. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done With pleasure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Right now, with 1 day and 21 hours left, K6ka's support percentage is at 78%. (Their graph of support percentage over time is here), I would like to request that even if K6ka doesn't hit the 75% mark by the end of the usual 7 day period, his nomination not be closed automatically, as Ad Orientem's was when it was at 78%. The RfA should either be extended to see if the downward trend will continue, or if supports will pick up and push K6ka's percentage up, or, at the very least, there should be a Crat Chat sbout the nom, and it should not be unilaterally closed by a individual Bureaucrat. The Ad Orientem action was, I think, a bad precedent: neither 7 days nor 75% is set in stone, and circumstances and judgement should be taken into account by the Bureaucrats: that's why they earn the big bucks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I assume you similarly supported extending Godsy's RfA, which was trending upward near closing time? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Trending updward? I think not" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In the last 2 days, it went from being outside the discretionary range, to 69%. You're suggesting that even if K6ka's downward trend stops now, and stays above the discretionary range, it should be extended. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness, but that's just crap. It was essentially down in the mud from the end of the first day to the end of the 7th. A tiny little upward trend from about 64% to 68.5%, which then levels off is not an indicator of a general upward trend, and if you think it is, I hope you're not a Wall Street investor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that Ad Orientem's RfA was closed without discussion despite a sharp downward trend at the tail-end, I think this action on K6ka's RfA could be interpreted as favoritism. I think the correct way to do this is to discuss a change in the policy of how RfAs time limits are handled, not to request special action a specific RfA. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussing changes for the future, but now is now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I will restate here, as I have explained elsewhere, that we do not extend RfAs because they are trending upwards or downwards. RfAs are closed as soon after the 7 days as a bureaucrat is available to close them. Extensions are exceptional and I see no good reason to depart from precedent - i.e. extensions where there is evidence of canvassing or significant new evidence comes to light late in the discussion. As to whether a WP:CRATCHAT, that will depend on whether the closing bureaucrat (who may or not be me) assesses the RfA as showing a consensus or not.
As an aside, it isn't useful to have someone post here every time an RfA looks like it might close somewhere in the discretionary range:

1. If you want mandatory WP:CRATCHATs between certain %s, start an RfC and try to establish a consensus in support of your position;
2. If you want to change the length of RfAs, or have a set extension if they finish between certain %s, start an RfC and try to establish a consensus in support of your position;
3. If you don't trust some/all bureaucrats to do their jobs, seek our recall or get more people who you do trust promoted.

Needless to say, I stand by the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem close, and do not regard it to have been controversial. WJBscribe (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I am asking Bureaucrats to do their jobs. We give them the power because we respect their judgment, and we do not expect them to become automatons when a bell rings after 7 days. In point of fact, Bureaucrats are not obliged to give the bit to anyone if, in their judgment, the rationales presented are not convincing, no mater what percentage of votes they received. Nor are they forbidden from extending RfA if circumstances call for it. If it were otherwise, we could just do away with you folks and use a bot to do the job. Your judgement doesn't come into play only when the voting is in the discretionary range of 65-75%, it is meant to be in play all the time. You should re-read the WP:Requests for adminship#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures section of the RfA main page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're confusing not exercising judgment with not exercising it the way you would like us to. I've explained several times why I don't think it would be a good idea to make the RfA end times elastic in the way you are proposing. I'm not saying it isn't something that a bureaucrat can do, I'm saying it isn't something I'm going to (or something I think other bureaucrats are likely to do either). WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. If Ad Orientem's RfA had been extended and it never went down any farther, or upticked some, you wouldn't have heard a word of complaint from me. You win some and you lose some (i.e. some people you !vote for get the bit, and some don't, some people you oppose don't get the bit and some do), it doesn't really bother me much because -- at least as far as I can remember -- noone who appears to be disastrously unqualified has gotten the bit. Sure, the problems with some were hidden, others go off half-cocked, but otherwise the RfA process is not a terrible one in that it generally produces admins who can be OK to great. I would recommend that you not take the easy path and simply write me off as a partisan, because that's really not what it's about for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And just to be clear, the fact that I opposed Ad Orientem's RfA does not mean that I expect them to be a rotten admin, it just means that, having examing all the information availoable to me, they didn't meet my criteria for supporting an RfA bid. From what little I've seen of their sysopping, they seem like they're doing fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK is referring to the line In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. One of the duties (perhaps the main duty) of a bureaucrat is to gauge consensus in an RfA and, if that involves extending the RfA then a bureaucrat is duty bound to do just that. (No comment on whether it is or is not necessary in this case.) I'm fairly sure this - extending the RfA to better gauge consensus - has been done before anyway so it's not as outré a suggestion as you make it out to be.--regentspark (comment) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There have been a few cases where RfAs have been extended, but those cases are very few and far between. I suspect it's maybe 1-2% of all RfAs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the number of RfAs there have been, 1-2% would not be an insignificant number - but, unless I'm reading him wrong - WJBccribe seems to be saying that he will not consider doing it at all, no matter what the circumstances are, and that he believes his fellow 'crats wouldn't either. Given the clear instructions quoted by RegentsPark above, I don't think that is the way things are supposed to be. We shoudn't need to pass yet another rule that says "Bureaucrats should really, really, really use their bestest judgement when the support percentage of an RfA approaches the discretionary range near the end of the usual 7 days," because using their best judgment is what we expect them to do all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• At 78.14 percent at about about 124 hours into the RfA, then if the trend progresses linearly, and assuming that the trend started when the RfA began, it would already be in the middle of the range at 70.38 percent, so such a proposed crat chat would be unnecessary. Esquivalience (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:CRATCHATs are always interesting, the existence of that page evidence itself. I think they are useful, to the community even if not to the bureaucrats, whenever an RfA close is less than obvious, especially considering that RfA closers rarely comment in their close. I'd like to encourage them, but WJBscribe's word "mandatory" would be way way too strong. I don't think it is good for the community to micromanage bureaucrats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• And people wonder why RFA is so unattractive to so many qualified editors. What's wrong with you people? 'Crat chats don't actually do any good at all, except to establish a tiny internal consensus that is entirely predictable about 90% of the time; I can only think of one 'crat chat where the decision that was made wasn't obvious before it even started. (Okay, it serves a purpose: it reduces the likelihood that one specific crat will get all the flak when the obvious outcome is applied, but I don't see that as a systemic benefit.) Frankly, I'd rather see a system where at the end of the 7 day RFA, the page is automatically protected and nobody except for the closing 'crat gets to edit it after that. This entire section seems to have two chains of thought: one the "I'm worried my preferred outcome won't be achieved without exceptional measures"; the other being "more lulz, please" - which is really what 'crat chats have always been. There are real people behind those usernames, and we need to keep that in mind. Risker (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • • Risker, you are a smart and perceptive person and a very, very fine editor and admin, but you're just plan wrong here. As I wrote above "my preferred outcome" is not at all the genesis of this discussion, I simply want Bureaucrats to act as Bureaucrats are expected to act, and to use their judgement in doing so, and not to act automatically without thought. I disagree that Cratchats are without value, I learn a lot from them, even if I'm occasionally gritting my teeth when I read them. As for lulz, presumably you're referring to someone else, because I've gotten no enjoyment from this discussion whatsoever, just a measure of disappointment that what seems so obviously true to me is not perceived as such by others I respect and admire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I know of no instance where a 'crat has acted "automatically without thought" when closing an RfX. In every case, 'crats "use their judgement" when closing one. We have to, given all the micro-scrutiny we get over the decisions we make when closing them. 'Crat chats are (and should be) the exception to the rule. The only reason to have one is if (for whatever reason) the closing 'crat is unable to read a clear consensus from the RfX discussion. They exist for no other reason. Therefore, we can not (and will not) promise to open one in this or any other case unless whichever of us is closing it is unable to determine a clear consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm...I kind of like the idea of a bot protecting the page at 7 days and one minute. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That might mean that people don't have to come and make noise here to alert you that an RfA is nearly finished. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I like it, too, if there's a simple switch in the RfA wikimarkup that a Crat can flick to ensure it doesn't happen on the rare (<1% IMHO) occasion that we want to extend it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, when was the last time that an RFA was deliberately extended? I've drawn upon my (probably unreliable) memory of perusing archived RFA discussions, plus a search for "extended" in both RFA subpages and the talk archives, and have only come up with these three from 2005 and 2006, the former two of which were more like nullifications: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2. Have there been any others? It seems to be that the number of RFA's that have been extended is more like 0.1 or 0.2% of the total than 1%. Graham87 12:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There was also Ral315's RfB [3], ostensibly extended to see if the consensus got clearer, although I think that extension illustrates why it shouldn't be done. The reasons behind the extension (see [4]) appeared to be a mixture between moving the close time to a more convenient time for some bureaucrats (not a good reason) and seeing how the consensus might change after very late opposition by a bureaucrat (a spectacularly bad reason). WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The discussion here [5] 2/3rds down is interesting. It appears @Xeno: - at the time - did not agree with cut-off. Leaky Caldron 13:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And upon searching archives of this noticeboard, there are two further extensions listed in the comment by MBisanz in this discussion, plus Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benjah-bmm27 from 2008 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ambuj.Saxena from 2006. So now we have seven of them, not counting the RFB, out of 4,527 recorded RFA's (not counting early unsuccessful ones), which is a touch over 0.15%. Graham87 13:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Benjah-bmm27 was extended (by me) due to canvassing, it isn't an example of an RfA/B extended to see if consensus gets clearer, so I think should be excluded from your calculation (there are other such examples, and of course there's Cla68's RfA as an example of late evidence). I think it's also noteworthy from the examples so far that the extensions are over a decade old and are by former/inactive crats, i.e. Raul, Cecropia, Linuxbeak and Taxman. WJBscribe (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham: Actually, I just remembered that MBisanz has done this analysis for you, see question 8 at User:MBisanz/Qs. WJBscribe (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @WJBscribe: Thanks, that's interesting. So we can conclude that (a) extensions haven't been performed for a long time (though the number of RFA's has been in steep decline since the last one in 2008) and (b) at least in the relatively recent past, extensions have only been given in remarkably unusual circumstances. Graham87 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I count at least 771 successful RfAs since the Ral315 extension in July 2007, which is the most recent example that's been found of a "let's see if consensus gets clearer" extension. WJBscribe (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another extension: Cla68. This one was particularly problematic as it was past the 7-day when the first oppose was made. There was also some pretty good evidence of canvassing to get the oppose votes. As it turns out, the issue brought forward was a great example of how Wikipedians sometimes assume too much good faith; Cla68 had accidentally stumbled into one of the most serious socking issues we had during that period. Unfortunately, it took us another couple of years to address some members of the community almost ritually coming to the defense of that sockmaster, but in the meantime Cla68 was vilified for many years. Incidentally, all those deleted edits he got caned for...were pretty much correct, and probably shouldn't have been deleted if we were genuinely being a neutral encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I can only hope that Risker doesn't know what she's talking about (and this is the second time I've seen her refer to this recently). That situation involved the extreme harassment of several editors, myself included, that continued for years. Repeatedly raising it means we have to choose between allowing the misrepresentation to stand and the risk of being re-victimized because we respond. It's time Wikipedia caught up with the rest of the world by understanding how damaging harassment is, how lasting that damage can be, and the importance of not mentioning it in passing so that the targets have to defend themselves in public.

Speaking generally, not about anyone mentioned in this thread, it would be madness if editors were not encouraged to bring serious concerns to the attention of the community, including at the last minute, and if that means extending an RfA, then that's what needs to happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I know quite well what I'm talking about, SarahSV, since I reviewed all the data about it at least 6-7 years ago while I was on Arbcom. The position you put forward at the RFA was that Cla68 had made such BLP-violating edits on a certain biography that it had to be oversighted (the old-fashioned kind of oversighting); turns out that not a single oversighted edit was by Cla68; in fact, not a single edit he made to that article was even deleted. And it turns out that, yes, at the time he said it, an entire cavalcade of socks were the primary editors of that BLP. I didn't name any names or point to any particular articles because the person believed to be behind the socking is reputed to be very litigious. I'm not going to hold it against you that you and others made the leap that because you'd been harassed, anyone who agreed with the harasser on any point was part of the harassment; you were led astray at least in part because of legitimate distress. But I stand by my statement that the edits that were used to hang Cla68 out to dry were legitimate, reasonably sourced, and a lot of people (both on and off wiki) were taken advantage of by a smooth operator who was also the target of your harasser. There are still articles related to that episode that aren't cleaned up because almost nobody with the necessary knowledge is willing to go near them. Risker (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This would be where you apologise for accusing Cla68 of being a sockpuppet and enabling harrassment then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My own RfA ran for minutes short of a full eight days with a sharp decline in the last 24 hours, from about 84% to 74% IIRC. It was brought to 'crat chat where MBisanz thoroughly analyzed the so-called "tectonic shift" in consensus (or lack of). The RfA was eventually deemed successful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this should be messed with as quickly or simply as 1 or 2 above are suggesting. If you want to close it on time - turn up at the time! Leaky Caldron 13:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the present case (I'm the nominator). In general, I'm opposed to protecting it the second/minute after it expires unless there's clear consensus for this - I could see this being susceptible to gaming and it's not the way we've traditionally handled things (the RfA being live until the time a bureaucrat closes it or puts it on hold). –xeno^talk 14:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Concur, however the WP:RFA page ...nominations will remain posted for a minimum of seven days... notation is slightly different from WP:ADMIN page: ...takes place for seven days.... As no single 'crat is compelled to close an RfA - letting it sit open until acted upon is a de facto extension. Optionally, a closing crat that needs time to review a long RfA can freeze it pending closure or move to cratchat. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have no knowledge of K6ka, so this comment is not about him or her. The problem with RFA is that there is sometimes an early rush to support by people who may not be familiar with the candidate's history. By the time people have highlighted a problem, the RfA might be nearing its end, but there's no indication that early supporters check back. Rather than extending RfAs, one solution might be to create a bot that asks supporters toward the end of an RfA to review it before it closes. This could be done for all RfAs, or perhaps a bot could be developed to do it only if the oppose trend picks up toward the end. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Possibly but not always. For example, in K6ka's case most opposes are not about the candidate per se but about the candidate not meeting the (imho wrong) requirement of being an ardent content creator. As such, later opposing !votes (at this time) are just repeats and those reasons were most likely considered by those supporting them. Also, I see practical problems with the idea of a bot notifying people if oppose !votes pick up. To take K6ka's RfA as an example again, there have been 10 supports after the last oppose (at this time) but on the other hand, 4 of the last 20 !votes were opposes. So how to determine a trend in any meaningful way? IMHO notifying all(!) !voters to re-evaluate their !vote should only be considered if the closing crat decides to extend the deadline because serious problems with the candidate were discovered at such a late time that most participants wouldn't be able to notice them anymore. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  If identifying a trend would make it too complicated, a bot could inform all supporters a day before closure, along the lines: "An RfA you supported will close in 24 hours. Please review the latest comments." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  Which would still not be useful in most cases. For example, this RfA just closed with a single oppose which was cast 14 hours before closure, thus most supporters most likely didn't notice it. The notice you mention wouldn't have helped if the oppose had been for a serious reason (since 24h before there were none) and even if it were cast before, most people would probably have been annoyed to be notified because of a last-minute oppose like that. IMHO, we should trust our crats to take the appropriate steps to notify all !voters iff they are convinced that a clear majority of users wouldn't have supported the candidate had they known about the newly raised concerns. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  This seems a bit biased - if this were to happen why would only supporters be targeted to possibly change their !votes as opposed to all participants? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Back to my original request, which didn't seem like it was going to be granted anyway: K6ka's support percentage has stabilized at around 78% since I made the request,[6] so, barring any last minute drop, it doesn't seem as if the close is going to be controversial. If that's indeed the case, I wish @K6ka: the best of luck as an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim_(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We've gotten a report that User:JohnCD died of a heart attack a few days ago. Donner60 reported it at WP:AN, and I've fully protected the userpage, but I'm unaware of independent confirmation, so I've used Special:Emailuser (since the reporting IP says that he has access to JohnCD's email accounts) to request offwiki confirmation. Can we go ahead with the desysop now (and resysop if JohnCD says that it's all a hoax), or do you want to wait until confirmation is received? Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines call for a verification, and has an allowance for checkuser checks. Outside of the one IP's message, are there any reliable sources that include identifying this account? JohnCD had a declared wikibreak scheduled to end yesterday. I used email user as well, will look for a response - let us know if you get one please. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll definitely mention what I hear via email; by "I'm unaware of independent confirmation", I meant that I didn't know of any sources about the person controlling this account. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any technical evidence that contradicts the claim, but nothing definitively establishes a connection either. T. Canens (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• JohnCD was the best. To me, he was a model role Wikipedian almost from the beginning of my participation here, and I can't believe it's almost nine years ago. I learned so much by watching his always professional and competent attitude and manners. This is a very very sad morning. R.I.P. John. It was a honor to work with you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Truly terrible. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Very sad news. Nyttend, I think it's better to wait for some confirmation. Sadly there have been previous attempts at getting admins desysopped by people impersonating relatives. Judging from the postings thus far, I think JohnCD's son will understand why we are asking if explained tactfully. WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• User Keri has confirmed this unfortunate news. Sam Walton (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sad news indeed. My condolences to his family and friends. I've completed the request. –xeno^talk 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Very sad - an incredible contributor who will be missed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the bot flag from AvicBot2 (talk · contribs) and block the account? It is currently inactive and I have no immediate plans to revive it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:30, 17 Tevet 5777 / 06:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the sysop right from my account. If you could grant template editor, autopatrolled, and extended confirmed at the same time, that would be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done, thank you for your service. –xeno^talk 12:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you all for your service.

1. Ronnotel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Islander (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Chamal N (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Isomorphic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Keeper76 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Lord Voldemort (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7. Shereth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 05:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't use my sysop abilities anymore so I'd like to relinquish this status. Thanks. --bdesham ★ 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:SoWhy disobeyed an order from arbcom on the page where you request page protections so he needs to be disciplined by the bureaucrats. 2602:306:3357:BA0:CC96:1326:B338:F16F (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done That's not how that works. Arbcom restriction violations can be brought up at WP:AE. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm poking around again, and I'm sure I'll be using the sysop tools where needed. Great to be back! —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Desysop was procedural for inactivity. I don't see anything which would prevent the return of the tools after the standard 24 hours. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Though I'm not familiar with User:Deckiller I don't see any problem that would keep his rights from being restored. The suspension only happened in November, 2016 due to inactivity. If he does come back as an admin, he should consider setting up bot archiving for his user talk page :-). EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, I probably should - people said that back in 2010 as well. I used to be very particular on how I archived, which is why I did it manually. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, hello old friends, if any of you are still here. I've determined to make time in my life for this project again this year, after career and other obligations prevented me from doing so for the last five years or so. All my permissions are (quite rightly) long gone, I'm afraid, so it's just article work for now, but that's what it's all about, after all. I just wanted to check in here, since I spent so much time on and around this noticeboard in the past. I've missed you all and I hope you've been well. Dan 02:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What a wonderful surprise. Welcome back, Rdsmith4! :) Acalamari 12:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Great to see you back. Whilst you may not have the permissions anymore, please do feel free to comment on discussions here if you're around. We welcome your thoughts and good judgment. WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back from me, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Dweller, I love your "Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values" campaign, what a great idea. WJB, thanks so much, and I'll contribute what I can, but I doubt I'll chime in for a while -- much has changed and I need to find my footing first (and do plenty of article work, which is what got me hooked on Wikipedia in the first place). Dan 09:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. You (and anyone else reading this) are warmly invited to sign up, here! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Rdsmith4, best little 'crat ever! [Bishzilla sticks the little Dan in her pocket and pours concrete over the catflap.] Not getting away again! Stay! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC).

We do have a few tunnels and emergency escape routes built into the pocket, you know, Dan. Particularly for weekends, when the servers from the strip clubs come in to work the admin/crat lounge. John Carter (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine what it was about Rdsmith4 that endeared him to you, 'Zilla [7]. Besides, I believe he is still defending reckless endangerment suits after 'Zilla went on a fire-breathing stampede having overdosed on the new-found power... WJBscribe (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Hello Zilla, I'm so happy to see you're still here! And though I may have courted controversy with a few permissions decisions, I'm glad to say Bishzilla's never caused me any headaches or regrets. :-) Dan 08:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's probably because you really can't feel anything after your head's been bitten off. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmpf. [Bishzilla playfully sends her new pet Komodobish on the scent of @WJBscribe and Lectonar:] Good little smeller! Never give up! bishzilla _ROARR!! 09:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC).

A Hi, to you. :). Junosoon (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested desysop a month ago due to harassment concerns. Since then, something has changed in my personal situation that lessens those concerns. Some members of the Arbitration Committee are aware of the full situation, but I do not plan to expand further on what happened on-wiki. In any event, I wish to return to actively using the mop to improve the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Self request was here on BN, Special:Diff/762720157. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 On hold Standard 24 hour hold for commentary opportunity. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No concerns, note: email response from an arbcom member indicates no "clouds" are in play related to the non-public arbcom info. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• No concerns. –xeno^talk 14:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns from me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I stopped the automatic desysopping by commenting on my talk page. But while I'm alive and well (and the account isn't taken over by a wrongdoer, which would be easy to prove using personal contacts at de.wikipedia), I realize that my long inactivity made me become out of touch with rules, customs, and technical details. So, please remove my sysop flag. --Pjacobi (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service - you are currently eligible for reinstatement if you stay active, just post back here if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you all for your service.

1. CJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Oldelpaso (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Xnuala (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7. Modemac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I recognize the names of some excellent admins in there. Hope they return. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

After having thoroughly enjoyed not having to touch the tools for 2,5 years, I'm also feeling more and more the limitations of not having them. I would like to request reinstatement of my sysop, so that I can more efficiently deal with some of the English Wikipedia technical spaces that I often interact with. My desysop request was here .—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Subject to the usual 24 hr wait, I'd be happy to resysop you. Glad to have people of your calibre, with or without mops. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns, welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Been 24 hours and no problems. Welcome back, TheDJ. :) Acalamari 21:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

User Cecropia fails Activity requirements last action in 2008 and one self request for return of tools this shows it.User:Cecropia Can the learned ones say where he meets activity ? Similarly User:Useight is allowed to retain tools on basis of alternate accountbut admins like Gustafson are kicked out. .I can see arguments for doing it both way but there should only one rule for Crats and Non Crats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your message reeks of bad faith but treating it on its merits, Cecropia last edited just a few month ago, so doesn't fall into the community-defined inactivity standards. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fails Crat activity requirements think passes Admin norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The very broad parameters at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts are subjective but my interpretation would be that this would not be an issue for another six months or so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Learned Dweller which is the precise edit which makes Cecophia meet activity ? He clearly fails to meet it. Further User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson lost his tools while Usersight has his tools.I can see arguments for doing it both way but there should only one rule for Crats and Non Crats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round, you'd need to show how he "clearly fails" to meet the requirements. I have no idea what those other people have to do with this discussion. And we do have different rules for bureaucrats. If you think this is A Bad Thing, whether or not that is because A Bad Thing happened to Jeffrey O. Gustafson, you'll need to establish a consensus of Wikipedians who agree with you. Someone else might helpfully point you to the last discussion where the current activity requirements was agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this may be helpful to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dweller did reach out to Gustafson in 2014 but to my knowledge didn't get any response one way or the other (Mr. Gustafson archived the message to history). If User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson had asked for an Useight-like exception, surely it could have been granted. –xeno^talk 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• WJBscribe and I briefly discussed Cecropia here. A more recent edit from Cecropia arguably meets the requirement of "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks". –xeno^talk 17:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed, it seems to me that Cecropia signalled his intention in the manner required by the policy. I have a vague recollection of being against that provision in the policy, but it's what the community agreed. As to Mr Gustafson, his rights should not have been removed and I said at the time that they ought to be returned. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  And slightly further into the discussion, I said this. I stand by this today. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yep, I think what we disagreed on (and presumably still do) is whether he should have been made to ask. My word wasn't actually good enough for you to reverse the desysop, after all. But this all happened long ago, and I doubt Mr Gustafson would have returned to admin activity had the permissions been restored. WJBscribe (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll admit to having bias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks to User:Dweller for giving me a heads up, and all my bureaucratic friends for doing some research and actively defending me. I'm not sure why my participation on Wikipedia is of current interest to the complaining user, but I do want to give a little explanation if I haven't already. Quite some years ago I found that I had to return to full-time work for the usual trivial reasons of keeping body and soul together, supporting my family, and keeping us in our home. And I'm still doing that well into retirement age. I love Wikipedia and am amazed at the way it has matured and become a real, competent and detailed encyclopedia.

That said, I would love to "keep my hand in" with at least occasional 'crat actions in preparation for more active duties but, though I was an active participant in some of Wikipedia's formative years in helping to set standards, I am well aware that some of these standards have evolved; not to mention some of the new Admins duties that popped up, as well as new 'crat responsibilities. ... Or ... TL;dr: I want to be sure I know what the hell I'm doing in 2017 before I start throwing my 'Crat Bit around. Best to all - Cheers, Your Cecropia (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Always good to see you around and we would of course be delighted if circumstances allowed you to be more active again. WJBscribe (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I was recently doing some work at WP:PERM and noticed that a user there was recently renamed through usurping another username. That in and of itself is not odd however in doing some digging I noticed that the user who had their username usurped by the user I encountered was renamed to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" which seemed odd as in the past I have always seen a user who is usurped renamed to "x username (usurped)". Doing some digging it appears that a number of users have been renamed to nonsensical usernames such as "Renamed user 5417514488", "Renamed user nnnnnnnnnn", etc. Further, some of the usernames that have been renamed to seemingly random usernames have made nontrivial edits which per my understanding makes them ineligible for usurping. Additionally it does not appear that they were locally notified with {{Usurpation requested}}. As I cannot see the full reasons for the renames I presume some of these renames may have been RTV however I wanted to drop a note here as I find it concerning that with with a nonpublic log some of these renames are almost impossible to piece together and seemingly in conflict with my recollection of our prior local practice. Mifter (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be WP:RTV. --Rschen7754 05:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the extraordinarily fast reply. I expect a large percentage of the requests likely are RTV, but I am concerned that by using nonsensical names (I've seen a number of "Vanished User 00000" used over the years to indicate RTV as opposed to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" or "Renamed user nnnnnnnnnn") combined with a nonpublic log it is impossible to piece together if it was RTV or a usurpation. If our goal is to be transparent then we are falling well short of it. In this case the first user "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" was renamed from "MilkGames" to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" and less than two days later "MilkGams" was renamed to "MilkGames". That looks like a textbook usurpation to me but with a nonpublic log I cannot be sure, which is why I am posting here as from what I can see, it looks like our policy/practices may not have been followed. Mifter (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The log is public, the requests aren't. In this case, the rename of MilkGames to the gibberish name was a vanishing request. The subsequent rename request was done without reference to the first, though I assume it's the same user. All renaming is global now - if you have a concern with how this is now done across all WMF wikis, the appropriate place to raise those concerns would be Meta. Bureaucrats no longer have any technical role in renaming. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the quick reply and clarification. I was doing some more digging through the log and it appears that those few remaining requests that come through a local process generally have a link to the diff/permalink where such a request was made (even in cases where I would argue it is discussing a somewhat sensitive matter) which provides public information about the rename. Was there a community discussion (or at least a notification/rationale) about why we moved from a predominately open log/process (with obvious common sense exceptions where needed) to an almost completely closed one somewhere along the line? Mifter (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I'm not sure. I can't remember ever reading a justification for why the global rename request queue is private. I would personally have no objections to making it public, since privacy-related requests are directed to email. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• We stoped using "Vanished user nnnn" because it was totally counter to the goal. Usurpations done via the enwiki process should almost all be of the form "(usurped)". Your first example may have been a user requesting their own account renamed or it may have been out of process, either way, it was not done via enwiki mechanisms. –xeno^talk 13:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Adminship following a clean start. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bureaucrats, I don't currently have time for Wikipedia activies, so in keeping with my position that admin tools should be limited to those who actually use them, please remove my admin flag. I'd like to hope that I'll have reason in the future to request it back, but I can't promise that. Best wishes,  — Scott • talk 15:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Interested parties, please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed: Minor change to inactivity policy notifications, an RFC which seeks to modify how and when administrators are given notification regarding pending removal of administrative permissions. –xeno^talk 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove bot flag from KharBot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) please, I have no plans for using it anytime soon and don't want to deal with it (as a matter of fact you can remove all of its rights, while you're at it). Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

I'm requesting reinstatement of my admin privileges. At this time I'm not planning to use them extensively, but I do find them useful to see deleted articles. I'll likely be active off and on in spurts, as some topic catches my notice.

These were removed due to inactivity, and I apologize for not tracking my length of time inactive more closely so that it wouldn't have come to this. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see the little admin back, will reinstate in a jiffy! (Bishzilla considers. Is she a bureaucrat? Not sure. But probably is! Ought to be!) bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC).

This sounds like a job for User:Aardvark Floquenbeam!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no issues pending the completion of the 24-hour wait period. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is nice. You're fondly remembered, Karanacs. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Aw, man... I wanted to do this one. --Aardvark Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This caused some semi-hilarious confusion as by coincidence another user requested autopatrolled rights on their behalf at WP:PERM while this was pending, and suddenly the bot's all like "already has it" ... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

I am requesting the admin toolset back and understand that there will be a minimum 24 hour wait. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ooh lovely. Clock starts now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No concerns here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm recusing from closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing and of course if there is a Crat chat, I'll recuse from participating in that, too.

But it brings up an interesting point for me. When there is a Crat chat, I don't think it's inappropriate for Crats to comment on the talk page of the chat, like any other editor. Just wondered if others had similar views? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support bureaucrats recusing from closing RfAs they have commented on - with some common sense exceptions, e.g. closing a unanimous RfA they have supported that no one else seems to be around to close etc... On the same basis, recusing from the cratchat is also wise. But I think it's fine to comment on the talkpage qua editor. I'm pretty sure that's happened before fairly regularly. WJBscribe (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember a crat supporting Northamerica1000's RfA then closing it as successful, and all hell broke loose. So absolutely - if you voted, recuse. Hopefully there are enough crats left. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

All hell broke loose because the 'crat took a personal swipe at me in their support and then unapologetically closed the RfA as successful while it was well within discretionary range. Now, that 'crat and I have settled the matter since then, but let's not equivocate it with this RFA, there were differences.--v/r - TP 12:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I recuse from bureaucrat chats in which I participated in the relevant RfA. Commenting on the talk page seems fine provided that a bureaucrat isn't trying to sway fellow bureaucrats from afar but I have confidence that my fellow bureaucrats and I are more than principled enough to not do that. Acalamari 11:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Just as an academic exericise in numbers- out of idle curiosity- what, on the matter of recusancy, would actually happen if out of all the (what, ~20?) crats, something 15 did vote in an rfa which went to a chat? — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 13:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then the remaining five can chat amongst themselves Seriously though, I think it's unspoken consensus among crats not to !vote in such RfAs when already a number of crats !voted to ensured sufficient participants for a crat chat. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense SoWhy; I like the idea, though, of fifteen crats all!voting support, and the remaining five closing as no consensus  :) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Curious why we don't just make more 'crat. I know one guy I'd happily support. Someone who has been very thoughtful in many RfAs and especially thoughtful on the RfA process. So why hasn't he run yet?--v/r - TP 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

...Give me a K- give me a- ! ;) — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 13:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You could nominate them. There's only been one RFB in the last three years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably because since the SUL finalization crats are not really needed for much anymore except bot flags and closing RfAs and RfBs, of which there are fewer as well. But if you have someone in mind, why not just ask them if they're interested in running? Personally I never understood why we don't just make all admins with a certain tenure crats; anyone who has been an admin for say five years should usually be trustworthy enough not to create an army of admin-vandal-bots after five years and one day. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're thinking whom I'm thinking, I discussed it a few months ago here. I think he's concerned about his track record in civility, and on that respect, I know how he feels. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't the folks I was considering but I'd happily support them too. Finding good candidates doesn't seem hard. So Why is it so difficult to find willing candidates?--v/r - TP 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just like RfA - anyone who could be a good admin either already is, or doesn't want to be one. If you can get Cullen328 to run (predicted RfA score : 215/0/3) I'll buy you a beer. For 'crats, I was mulling over MusikAnimal, but he's just been involved in the cookie block feud over on ANI so that may come back to bite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, the cookie block thing was a mess but I didn't author the patch or sign off on it, just reported that it was released, so I think no one is holding me to it? :) As for 'crat, this makes the fourth time someone has asked me! I could use it for assigning bot flags but you probably wouldn't find me closing any RfAs, unless it's a clear promotion. Carefully reviewing really long discussions is not something I aspire to do or have much experience in, hence I question how well a RfB would actually go — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Aardvark has a k in it --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably because since the SUL finalization crats are not really needed for much anymore except bot flags and closing RfAs and RfBs, of which there are fewer as well., SoWhy, these things are true, but the number of Crats who are really active is declining and there are occasions when it's really quite hard to drum them up, for example, for a timely CratChat. I think fresh blood is a good thing in any case, but in this case in particular. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Easy way to get more 'crats: rename it to super-admin. The fez isn't nearly enough of an incentive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding trying to sway bureaucrats from afar: I presume most people commenting on a talk page are trying to have an influence on the discussion. I think the key factors are if the commenting bureaucrat is trying to leverage the bureaucrat role to affect the discussion (an extreme case being, "I don't know how I can work with anyone who supports this editor becoming an administrator"), and if the comments are more factual versus analytical. For example, I don't believe anyone would object to a bureaucrat pointing out a misconception about what an editor actually said, but it starts to become a slippery slope if the bureaucrat states an assumption of why the editor said that, even if it's a widely held assumption within the participants of the RfA. If you believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to avoid participating in an analysis of the discussion, then it's probably best to avoid doing it on the talk page, too. isaacl (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are elected because of their ability to step back and judge an RfA from a neutral standpoint. IMO that doesn't change when they've actually voted in a request. As such, I don't mind bureaucrats closing RfAs or participating in 'crat chats for requests that they have voted on, though in the case of the former it's probably best for them to recuse for the sake of appearance. When it comes to a 'crat chat, I see no reason why recusals should be necessary. It's not like voting/not voting creates a magical difference between having a personal opinion and not. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are sufficient crats participating, it avoids any appearance issues for sure - now if we exhaust the supply of active crats I think it may be ok to go meta -and have one of the recusing crats close the crat chat - especially if it is contrary to their original rfa position (queue secret false flag conspiracy theories...) — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In most legal systems, judges recuse themselves or are disqualified if an appearance of bias exists. They don't have to be biased to not participate, it's sufficient that reasons exists that might lead a reasonably minded party to assume that this judge will rule a certain way. The same applies to crats when they judge an RfX. Even if they are completely able to shut out their bias, a significant portion of the community will wonder whether their decision was influenced by their bias. There is no need for that. Or, in other words: The reasoning for WP:INVOLVED applies to crats judging RfX as well even if they are users who are considered particularly well-versed in the act of neutrally judging consensus. Crats recuse themselves not to prevent impropriety but (also) to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the same doesn't apply, because 'crats aren't judges. I am personally more concerned with the rationale for closing a request one way or the other than with who ends up doing the closing. You're correct, of course, that preventing the appearance of impropriety is a reason for 'crats to recuse, in particular from closing requests outright. I'm just trying to present the view that it shouldn't be taken too far or too seriously. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ajr, what exactly makes 'crats above having bias or allowing it to affect their decisions? Do sysops, Arbs, and regular users lack this quality?--v/r - TP 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't above having bias, but they are selected to be able to step back from their bias more than other roles are. My very small point here is that I'm more concerned with the rationale for closing any discussion than with who in particular closes it. Looking at this particular 'crat chat, I'm not concerned with how it was conducted either, so perhaps I'm just worried over nothing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem mainly occurs when the vote is close, as it was in this case, because it's hard to prove that one's already expressed opinion didn't affect the proposed outcome. Sometimes, it has to happen, but it's not preferable. --Rschen7754 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: regarding new 'crats, while blooding some new bureaucrat talent might be helpful, in the current atmosphere an RfB could be more an exercise in bleeding candidates into hypovolemia, tachypnea, and ultimately exsanguination. EdChem (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Afterthought: I wonder if Bishzilla's pocket is equipped with ICU facilities... EdChem (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are invited to comment in the above discussion. I will send round the usual talk page message. WJBscribe (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The result of the chat was that the RfA was successful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey 'crats; I'm just confirming that I was notified by ArbCom about impending removal of the CU rights per inactivity. Please feel free to go ahead and remove them. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: That has to be requested at m:SRP since only stewards can do that. --Rschen7754 00:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)