Pratyeka (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)}

Unless problems are fixed within hours, I am resigning from Wikimedia contributions effective immediately. A series of great efforts, most recently many days creating and updating maps related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak have been deleted or removed. Over the 17 years of my involvement I have noticed a clear, direct and unrelenting change in the culture of Wikipedia, making it ridiculously tiresome to contribute at all, despite bringing a unique skillset as a 20+ year software professional to the projects. I don't have time for this anymore. It's pathetic. Failing a 'fix this' button to save me time, I can only leave. Goodbye. prat (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pratyeka: Can you be more specific regarding the "series of great efforts" that has been deleted? Links would be especially helpful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If this refers to File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map.webm, politics aside, I found the image helpful. I remember noticing that Taiwan's outline was in grey, a clear reference to its disputed status. There is an open RfC on this at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#RfC on map of infected cases that focuses on whether Taiwan should or should not be included in the map. Of course, if consensus on the talk page says that it should not be retained, then it should not be retained. It is unfortunate that these political issues are hindering editing of an article on an international outbreak. Dekimasuよ! 01:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe the efforts largely revolve around Pratyeka's creation of File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map.gif and File:2019-nCoV Confirmed Cases Animated Map.webm and insertion (e.g., [1], [2], and [3]) where others have removed it (e.g. [4]). See also Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#RfC_on_map_of_infected_cases. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done @Pratyeka: it appears you are in a content dispute and those can certainly be frustrating - however there is no way for us 'crats to know if your "problems are fixed". If you want to have your administrator flag removed, please let us know explicitly. I do suggest you try going through some of the routine dispute resolution processes to work on your sticky situation first. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Mikaey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Fishhead64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee linked above, please remove the sysop bit from RHaworth (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 05:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: You might want to remove the full protection from his user page so he can edit it. Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Per a discussion underway at WP:BON; crossposting this here because I accidentally linked to this noticeboard in the block summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DeltaQuad (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)}

After taking 3.5 months away from Wikipedia and having some time in some different areas, I think I have cleared my head enough to return refocused. I initially departed because of somethings that I fundamentally disagreed with and thought were not going to change. Over the time I've spent away, I realized I don't have to agree with everything that goes on here, and it doesn't mean I endorse it by being here, it just means I should be here to provide a voice. Either way, i'm not going to make a huge speech here, but i'm back with a refocused view. Requesting sysop and crat back with the standard 24 hours. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Glad to see you rejoin the mop-handler-handler corps. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 06:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back! AGK ■ 07:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• No concerns, glad to have you back! Did you hear about the 5 RfAs? It was positively electric up in this house. –xeno^talk 12:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• I have to say I was profoundly unimpressed with your attitude 3.5 months ago; however I trust the time off has cleared your head and you are ready again to help keep the encyclopedia running. I have a couple more RfAs planned this year and hopefully they won’t be a contentious head scratching exercise; still, I have appreciated your thoughtful and insightful comments for the ones last year that were. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• It has been awhile since I have logged in and been greeted with some positive news. Welcome back! Mkdw ^talk 16:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back, Amanda! --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is great news. Welcome back! – bradv🍁 16:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• A fantastic way to end the week! Welcome back, Amanda.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back, DQ! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delighted to see you returning! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is good news indeed. Welcome back! - MrX 🖋 18:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-bureaucrat comment) Welcome back. I'm happy to see you return. Invalid^OS (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Great to have you back! Puddleglum ^2.0 19:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• <bristles happily> Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• The squirrel said it best. Happy days. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome back!!! SQL^{Query me!} 21:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• I don't often comment on these, but it really is good to see someone I have great respect coming back and re-engaging. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• I couldn't be happier to see this :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overjoyed! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Now there's something good going on this week. Welcome back. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• erm... I welcomed her on her talkpage, but everyone seems to be welcoming here. Have the norms changed? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Done. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I understand that the "RfA is about consensus" thing is settled (I updated the text on RfA page when the RfC ended, so I definitely agree with the sentiment). I simply intend to ask the bureaucrats' opinion is if every RfA between 65-75 will be guaranteed a chat (I believe this is a no) or will one crat decide if a crat chat is required (I believe this is what happens) or will multiple crats decide if a crat chat is needed (I believe this should happen)? In my opinion, the last option seems most ideal but it does not seem to happen and crats often disagree on whether a crat chat should be done or not even if they are ultimately fine with the outcome (which is a bad version of the ends justifying the means). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a bureaucrat, but if my understanding is correct it's really up to the bureaucrat who first handles the RfA to make a decision. Back in the day often you saw "discretionary closes" with a closing statement while today a crat chat is more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The instructions for bureaucrats is for us to assess consensus. If you read some WP:RfBs, particularly the old ones, you'll find there have been plenty of RfAs that individual crats have assessed as having consensus one way or another that contradict a simple reading of the numbers. The community elects Crats very carefully and by doing so says that they place their trust in their judgement. The group is probably quite conservative (with a small c) by nature because the system that chooses us weeds out mavericks pretty well, but nonetheless, some Crats are more likely to opt for a Cratchat than others. But I see this minor variance as a strength, particularly when it does come to group decision-making. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dweller: Apologies that I was not clearer with my question, I meant to ask that since different crats have different views on whether a crat chat is required, does it not make sense to open a crat chat by consensus than by effectively biasing the decision-making altogether by having a first-come first-serve basis on who gets to decide if there is a crat chat or not? Crats will always assess based on consensus, but if a singular crat decides that a crat chat is not needed or needed, that becomes a de-facto decision without actually assessing the need for crat chat. I also believe in cases where the editor is above the ~64% threshold, a discussion to determine if a crat chat is needed should be compulsory, since we specifically allowed for it, that crats should assess the consensus with the same, if the consensus is that there is no need for a crat chat, that's all fine and good, but if the one or more crats feel that they should take more time and invite participation from other crats in the process, it should be necessary to do so. Out of the few cases that I'm referring to here, we can take GoldenRing and Greenman's RfA as examples, in case of GR, one crat could have unilaterally chosen not to go to crat chat and they would not be given access to the toolkit whereas in case of Greenman's RfA if it had not been closed unilaterally and went to crat chat, there is a significant chance it would have resulted in access to the toolkit. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: I don't think you can speak for other crats and say they would have passed the Greenman RfA, and therefore I don't yield to that claim. There is absolutely no requirement for a crat chat as we assess consensus, not a vote count. Forcing a crat chat at a certain percentage pulls a 'crats ability to assess the actual situation. The current discretionary range is 65-75. Greenman's RfA rolled a 61%. So you want to force a crat chat now down to 60%? That was completely opposed by the community in the last RfC. The lower we keep making the range, the more slippery the slope. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I'm sorry but I think you missed my point by a mile or so (no harm done!) I do not think that the range needs to be lowered, or that crats need a fixed range or that crats need to assess on numbers (very against it actually). I'm talking about requiring a consensus between crats, or alteast that crats should err on the side of caution and decide on taking things to crat chat when in the discretionary range or somewhere controversial, at the very least. This was absolutely not about your close of the Greenman RfA (it was not a point of complaint anyway, just stats), but since you brought it up, I'm sure there were some crats who would have found a consensus to promote and to say that you don't yield to that claim is mere and absolute speculation since there is no effective way to determine if you are correct (I said significant chance, not absolute probability). I'm simply saying why make unilateral calls or justify your closes when there are 14 crats and maybe two or three can swing by within the close of a contentious RfA at any given day. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Considering past precedent (see below), there seems to be no real danger of crats closing such RFAs alone these days anyway, so do we really have to write it down somewhere? Regards SoWhy 15:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Crats face flak for any contentious RfA even if there is no crat chat, but if there is one, there is a shared responsibility as well. For example, after Jbhunley's cratchat, there was a bit of chaos all around, but after Amanda's close, it was borderline trainwreck all around, eventually with them taking a leave from Wikipedia, even though their close was technically not an issue at all. When it comes to contentious RfAs, it's just worse to have one crat take the full weight of judgement, even if they are fully capable of it, consensus reigns over unilateral calls (and as I'm sure Jbhunley's close is probably less of a concern to people than Amanda's close of the Greenman RfA, even though, per policy, both are equivalent in nature of their correctness). --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on a few points that I didn't understand. Also, I'll clarify I agree some have already expressed an opinion on Greenman and definitely some could have voted for giving the tools. That's the nature of crats. I was objecting to the thought that it would automatically provide a consensus and they would have got the tools. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Having bureaucrats discuss whether a crat chat is required undermines the point that crats are entrusted members of the community not to go playing around. If we can't trust an individual crat to handle an RfA closure, then what job do we really do other than provide a supervote of sorts? It also just adds even more bureaucracy and is a solution in search of a problem. I didn't leave because of the Greenman RfA, nor one particular incident, nor anything to do with my 'crat duties. If we can't handle a bit of heat for a decision we make, we aren't meant to be 'crats - or admins for that point. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean to assume, but the timing did make it seem so. Glad to have you back either way. Coming to the crux of what we were talking about, I believe the added bureaucracy should be required to moderate the effective biasing of having a first-come first-serve approach to closing contentious RfAs, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking solely from a longtime experience of watching RFAs, part of the more recent trend towards crat chats is probably because of the aforementioned conservative approach coupled with a long trend away from WP:NOBIGDEAL. The community has much higher standards for both admins and crats today than say 12-15 years ago and so crats, particularly "younger" ones are more likely to seek "safety in numbers" instead of taking flak for making a controversial decision alone.

Going by the info on Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion, there were 27 crat chats so far. Of those 27, 21 where wrt to RFAs and 6 were for RFBs. Of the 21 RFA chats, 6 happened in the last five years and 16 in the last ten years. On the other hand, the total number of RFAs declined steadily since 2009-2010.

To put it another way: From 2016 to 2020, there were 130 RFAs, so approx. 5% of all RFAs were decided by crat chat. On the other hand, between 2007 (year of the first crat chat) and 2010, we had 2100(!) RFAs, which means only approx. 0.23% were decided that way and between 2011 and today, approx. 3% of RFAs were decided by crat chat. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not say there is a guarantee, and obviously every RfA is different. If I was closing borderline RfA, I'd be more likely to go to a 'crat chat if there were multiple contentious factors debated in the discussion. For example if there was discussion about recent blocks of the candidate, and their recent CSD's, and their civility. In complex cases like that it can help to get additional opinions, just as is done when closing certain RfC's. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything in the procedures that could compel a bureaucrat to take any given RfA to a bureaucrat discussion, so you are correct in saying "one crat decide[s] if a crat chat is required". I'm not sure if there are any examples of bureaucrats (as bureaucrats) suggesting something go to a discussion prior to closure, though I know I've seen participants talking about it. –xeno^talk 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a general observation, it seems to me like contentious RfAs are more likely to end up at a chat these days than was the case, for example, a decade ago. That said, I don't think it's a guarantee. When I closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum, my first thought was a chat, seeing how it was overdue and that it was at 76%, but then having thoroughly read the discussion, it didn't strike me as a borderline case, so I just went ahead and closed it. (For what it's worth: I've received zero complaints about that close.) Over the years, there's a bit of a pattern with the more difficult RfAs: in contrast to the obvious ~100% ones where a crat closes it right on the minute it's due, the difficult RfAs linger, even if we have a crat or two, who are actively involved in crat areas, editing elsewhere at that point. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  That is what the numbers (see also above) suggest. If we are using 2010 as an example, the highest % RFA that failed was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 at 75%, while the lowest % RFA that succeeded was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare at 71%. Both were closed by a single crat with a (lengthy) explanation but no crat chat. As a comparison, both RFAs within the discretionary range from 2019, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2, had a crat chat (same goes for 2018, where only Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley landed in the range). Regards SoWhy 14:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• @SoWhy:RexxS is listed twice in your comment. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dolotta: Thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes my Ctrl-C does not work and I end up with the old link in the clipboard. Fixed now. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• To my knowledge the relatively recent resysop RfC is the first time CRATCHAT became a formally endorsed process (and in that particular case a mandated one) rather than an informal one Crats could choose to employ (or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Those mini-discussions about resysop following inactivity aren’t really the same as dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat discussions. Also note that the discussions are only required when there is doubt as to the suitability. A single bureaucrat can still action a re-sysop request as far as I can tell. –xeno^talk 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Well the same or not statement 3 from the link above does suggest a case where a CRATCHAT is called for according to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  It’s all fine to call a discussion about a resysop request a “cratchat”, it still doesn’t make it a bureaucrat discussion in the traditional sense (and I wouldn’t put them in the same table), per my comments below statement 3. The statement says they’re only formally needed when in doubt. I don’t think statement 3 had much effect anyway: bureaucrats traditionally hold discussions open if there are lingering questions or additional input is needed from colleagues. –xeno^talk 01:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• It has been always been the call or discretion of the first crat to decide whether there should be crat chat or not and whether to close it himself/herself even if it is in the Discretionary range and only once in recent times has a closure of a crat been reverted and reclosed here as the crat had voted in the RFA and this was controversial in 2004 and a crat quit over this. A Crat chat is not required for every discussion in the discretionary range. Further as stated in The Close and this after this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe was closed at 69% without a crat chat when some editors wanted a review.Here this comment by one crat sums it up There's no review needed, as far as I can see. Nihonjoe acted within the limits of what we bureaucrats are allowed to do; bureaucrat chats are not required for every RfA that falls into the discretionary range. If a bureaucrat - in this case, Nihonjoe - feels secure enough to make such a close on their own and can justify it either way, that's completely acceptable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

<-Thanks Pharaoh, for linking to that 2016 discussion. I stick by my comments from that discussion:

"The Bureaucrats are all clear about current policies and guidelines.

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

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

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

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Athaenara (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)}

I requested removal of my admin tools in mid-November 2019 (ref Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 42#Wish to retire my mop). After years of dealing almost daily with spam, I had reached burnout for the first time. Now, three months later, I can see that crying "Enough!" and throwing it all up in the air was not the only available option.

I'm here to ask to pick up the tools again, if that would be appropriate, whereby I could at least respond more helpfully to editors who ask for review of previously deleted content, or intervention against vandals, even as I deliberately assign myself more distance from spammers (and the teahouse invitations on their talk pages!). – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Welcome back. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I replaced the standard {{rfplinks}} and applied the usual section heading, deciding that this is no place to improvise freely. – Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The editnotice says {{Userrights}} actually. Also, both are used (sometimes none!), so no standard as such, albeit you yourself used {{Userrights}} in your desysop request (just for trivia). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: taking this as a representative sample for section heading and rfplinks template. – Athaenara ✉ 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Athaenara, just to ask the stupid question, but I do not see you as having ever been a crat; why are you asking for a re-cratting? Primefac (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I'm not, sorry, just tripping over myself a bit. – Athaenara ✉ 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I figured that might be the case. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

erm... I think I'm missing something. I cant see where did Athaenara ask for re-cratting. By the way, welcome back Athaenara! —usernamekiran (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/940823907. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

lol. I had gone through the history too, but I looked everywhere except for the header. And it was changed alongside a comment. :D —usernamekiran (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, welcome back. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: thanks, and welcome back to you, too. – Athaenara ✉ 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(copied from MMS) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Should this page be added to the MMS list for future use? Primefac (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't hurt -  Done! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Following on the last crat chat I have started a discussion to solicit community feedback about a couple of areas. Followers of this noticeboard might be interested in participating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Useight (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung, please remove the sysop flag from Kudpung (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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

1. PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ^*

   ^* last admin action August 2012

3. Jonny-mt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: MarkGallagher admin rights do not appear to heva been removed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging someone like xaosflux only works if there's a signature added in the same edit ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards (Amorymeltzer—xaosflux) now done. –xeno^talk 15:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd, thanks for the note Pharaoh of the Wizards and the fix xeno. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

that this is the wrong place but the expertise is here!

I haven't dismissed it and my Watchlist message regarding open RfA/RfB has gone walkabout. I have the one for SignPost. Any ideas please? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you probably dismissed the old one and the new one wasn't triggered, I've fixed that now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious whether I can get the bit back by request? Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship states that administrators that have the bit removed due to inactivity should not get it automatically restored on request if it has been over five years since they last used the tools, but I gave it up voluntarily so I'm not covered by that (or by the wording of the approved proposal in the RFC). I gave the bit up on November 26, 2007. Yomangani^talk 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The resignation statement is here and was processed by Stewards since back then enwiki bureaucrats did not have desysopping privileges. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Four hundred edits in the last three months, about thirty in the prior seven years. I think I know how this will be processed, but I'm interested to hear—Yomangani, what do you think the answer should be? Dekimasuよ! 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I know I wouldn't run amok, so if I was judging myself I'd obviously return the bit. Though if I wasn't me, I'd think it fairly insane. Yomangani^talk 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I was also basically inactive for all but three months of 2010–2017, though I never turned in my tools. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• An excellent contributor in their days; and someone who should be absolutely a positive addition to the administrative workforce. Just give it please. Lourdes 14:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the endorsement Lourdes, but I should make it clear I don't actually want the bit back. I was just curious whether this was a case that had slipped between the cracks when the revised inactivity rules were drawn up. I have no real use for the tools and I am unlikely to use them altruistically. My query was really "would you feel obliged to return my bit if I asked for it back after 12 years (during seven of which I barely looked in) just because there is no rule saying you shouldn't?" Yomangani^talk 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think that is a silly "loophole" that got left in there, but getting that policy amended to even the small change it did get took enormous effort! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's the "loophole" that Beeblebrox has been trying to close for years, but has had, like you said, difficulty gaining consensus for even the smallest changes. The policy states "If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal", which got changed from three years to two years here. This particular user got really close multiple times, including going about seven years with a handful of spaced-out edits, but as far as I can tell, never actually went two years without an edit. Useight (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I saw that I didn't fall foul of that rule, which is partly what prompted the question. I would think that I'm an outlying case: gave up the bit under uncontroversial circumstances 12 years ago and met the editing activity criteria for its return ever since. It seems the general feeling is that you wouldn't feel duty bound to return the tools without an RFA which was all I was really interested in knowing. Yomangani^talk 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note: There is also the section of Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure that talks about the bureaucrat being reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity (or intends to return to activity). Regarding that point, I, personally, am convinced. Of course, there is the standard 24-hour hold period. Useight (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Yomangani: as you are not actually asking for restoration, just asking about the process - it basically will come down to: if any doubt concerning the suitability for restoration is raised a discussion among the 'crats will be triggered. With your very lengthy break and self acknowledgement of "loopholes" the easiest way to avoid doubt and any drama would be to request restoration using the standard process instead. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yomangani: ^^^you'd have no problem whatsoever. Go for it. ——SN54129 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There would be problems. That's not to say they shouldn't go to RfA sometime in the near future but I would hope they would have a reasonable expectation of what it would be like before doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, bureaucracy aside, I wish to state for the record that it's lovely to see the Yeoman and his picturesque edit summaries back. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC).
• My reading of the discussion is in line with the words in the close: "admins who have not used the admin tools for a prolonged period (5 years is mentioned) will usually be required to reapply via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship", which is in line with what was placed on the policy page: [5]. The current wording of "In the case of removal due to inactivity," to that passage was added by User:Lourdes in Feb last year: [6]. It's not clear if Lourdes intended to move the wording to that particular section, or if there is consensus for such wording. Lourdes was making a series of tidying up edits, and may have moved the wording to the wrong section. User:Lourdes, can you remember making those edits last year, and shine some light on them? SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I made those changes after there was a series of discussions at BN about Uninvited Company making edits without consensus. The edits were thought out and exhibited consensus of the RfC prior to that. My apologies that I don't have the time to link those discussions right now. Warmly, Lourdes 16:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is the discussion: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_40#Five_year_rule. The intention of the RfC, it appears, was always to be about inactivity, though that does not seem to be made clear in the RfC itself, nor in the close, so I can see how confusion has resulted. I'm not sure, at the moment, what the actual consensus is, because I'm not sure everyone commenting in that RfC were commenting on the intention that the discussion was only to be about those who were desyopped for inactivity. Perhaps what is needed is for another whole site notified RfC on the issue in order to clarify the matter. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. How many people are there like me (not even the real me, but the hypothetical me that wanted his tools back and and would brook no deviation from the letter of the law)? If the problem comes up you can deal with it. Yomangani^talk 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yomangani, we actually had such a case in the past year: an admin who had been inactive for something like 10 years, had a few thousand global edits ever, asked for the bit back with their first edit in years, got it, and immediately went inactive again. It sparked the discussion that ended in the most recent minor change because it pissed so many non-admins off. --valereee (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The recent CratChat highlighted that more Crats are useful. There aren't that many of us, and at any one point in time, some of us are likely to be on wikibreak or just not very active. If you've thought about RfB, give it a whirl. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How high is the demand for non-botop bureaucrats? I did sometimes consider whether applying my deletion discussion closing skills to RfX would improve the project and the fact that I am not very active in bot-related areas was one thing holding me back (and cited as a cautionary note by others). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 'crats aren't expected to be bot operators; you would be expected to be well versed in the WP:BOTPOL though. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• If any administrator is willing to run, Primefac and DQ's RfB are pre-requisite readings. --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd go the opposite way; that's why I turned in my bit, there's really nothing for crats to do outside of having a borderline chat that comes around once in a while. In fact more might be worse since that'd make any consensus likely that much more muddled. Wizardman 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

^this; that's exactly why I turned in my 'crat bit, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Reduce the number of 'crats to zero and let the WMF work it out. Right now we're already at the point that 'crats do nothing more than work out divisive RFAs, and as we all know, there's been literally zero admins going batshit crazy and abusing the tools and destroying Wikipedia in the past twenty years. Wow. Probably time to look at removing the position altogether, especially with WMF's "oversight". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We've had a dam for the past 20 years and we've never had a flood, so let's get rid of the dam? Levivich (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away, sell it to you cheap. PackMecEng (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

False analogy. The sporadic 'crat chats are hardly keeping a "flood" away, that I'm afraid is nonsense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I say we nominate a non-admin. It was kinda cool when Xeno turned in the mop but stayed a crat. I'd like to see that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If that sounds too simplistic, idk.. it kinda is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I had discussed technicality about this a long time ago with xaosflux. A non-admin running an RfB. I think most of the folks wont have a problem with such a crat/RfB. But sometimes I think such RfB might tank. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a radical proposal. Collectively Wikipedians are small-c conservatives. So yes; it would tank. ——SN54129 08:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it would totally tank, but at least it'd be an interesting discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Basically every non-admin candidacy to ArbCom. None of them are ever close to qualifying, even if they are dedicated members of the community, the lack of the sysop bit seems to most as not having enough trust, albeit some of them would probably also get the right if they ran RfA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd consider doing an RfB if such a proposal was passed, but I'm not really active in crat related areas, such as RfA, so I probably would fail if I tried. On the topic of the proposal itself, I wouldn't be opposed to such a proposal, though I'd still probably give crats the ability to issue blocks, mainly to enforce the bot policy. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC) (edited 13:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC))

"I say we nominate a non-admin." - similar to nominating someone to test out a Ducking Stool. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't a non-admin bureaucrat be able to grant herself an admin mop? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: technically, yes. Policy wise, no. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that would go over about as well as a 'crat giving admin rights to anyone else who was not entitled to them. 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Optimal number of crats?

Is there an optimal number of bureaucrats to have? I note TRM's "zero" reply above. :) There are 17 with the bit but only about 13 are currently around with frequency. One of the reasons for some of the opposes in the current RfBs is that they are of the opinion that there are already enough. What is the right number? The only functionaries that have a quota for number of positions are the members of Arbcom, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Some say there are too many. Others say that there are not enough, or at least that we need fresh blood. As with many Wikipedia matters, it would prove impossible to get a consensus. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A quick glance at the ongoing RfX chart reveals – to me, at least – that those convinced there are too many represent only a small minority. I think there's a very good chance that we have (or will do shortly) as many 'crats as we strictly need, but I'm also not sure there's any good reason not to promote a dozen or a hundred more. Even if the duties of the role are presently light, it's nice to have a group of thoroughly vetted, extra-smart people upon whom to call if we do ever need such a body for more than just the yearly nailbiter RfA. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Shenanigans

Now that the last of the three RfBs has closed, I'm calling total shenanigans on this post. Surely it wasn't a coincidence that this post was made and suddenly 2 RfB candidates manifested out of the blue. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick, someone shut everyone up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: plays pronoun card. Gains immunity. :P –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, well, the cabal wants none of y'alls to speak up, so mum about it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The post asked for people to submit requests to become a bureaucrat, and they did, so ... whether or not they saw this specific post, other discussion threads that talked about having more bureaucrats, or were prompted by the recent bureaucrat chat, what's the shenanigans? isaacl (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's meant to be sarcasm. and if not, then i'm way more out of touch than I thought -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps; the "pondering" emoji conveyed a different tone. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad and Isaacl: Indeed, it is sarcastic/ironic/silly. Though, I really am curious if the two events had anything to do with one another. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably what led to this post led to more requests. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

As the wiser editors are saying on the talk page, the sort of aggregated negative social judgement of one peers on offer at Guy's RfA could easily make an editor physically ill. Current mainstream thinking is that social rejection activates similar neural components to physical pain. It tends to elevate levels of stress hormones, which if prolonged can lead to physical illness.

As SoWhy says we ought not deny an experienced editor have an RfA go the distance against their wishes. But there's no reason to think that Guy staying silent for more than two days means he wants the RfA to continue. Guy's the sort who plays to win, and silence is not a winning tactic in this sort of RfA. Its only quite rare individuals who would enjoy or be indifferent to this sort of negative attention. No reason to think Guy's such a person. Some are saying he may have a power cut. But Guy is a resourceful & a skilled engineer, so there's no reason to think a power cut would stop him participating for more than 2 days. It's possible he has a RW situation needing his full attention, but on the balance of probabilities, closing this RfA now may be the best thing to do. Unless I'm miremembering, crats used to do this with other experienced editors when their RfA had passed the point of no return. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just beating a dead horse at this point. Maybe @RickinBaltimore and Doc James: can shine some light on Guy's disappearance. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the RFA itself but haven't really given enough thought to mull things over. Though I was originally going to wait and see what Guy had to say about the issue, but given they've been gone for two days now and it's very unlikely they will be able to turn around their nomination, I'll lean towards agreement with the multitudes on the talk page that this is the better road. If Guy returns and wishes to continue I will of course respect their wishes. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This was probably for the best, I very much doubt Guy returning will change the outcome of the RfA and I hope they take it as a solid stance of the community. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: What do you mean with I hope they take it as a solid stance of the community? ——SN54129 19:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: The fact that members of the community expect WP:CIVILITY from administrators and candidates for adminship. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to Guy since he gave me to OK to post the nomination earlier this week. I did reach out on his talk to ask if he wanted to shut it down for him, but obviously have not heard back. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon was closed by Primefac. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:Guy Macon#message from guy's wife - says that Guy had a heart attack Tuesday, which would be the 3rd. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite my break, I keep popping in here, and I see folks struggling to cope with problems regarding the current health situation. I think you need more admin help, and I'm prepared to volunteer for the duration if you'll have me. To be clear, my original reasons for resigning my adminship stand. I still have little respect for Wikipedia's current governance structure, especially not for the leadership of the Trust and Safety team. I still have no intention of returning to adminship long-term under that leadership, and not without a new RfA. But if I can help with the current crisis, I'm happy to volunteer on a temporary basis to help deal only with coronavirus-related things (broadly construed), and if this offer to help is accepted I will resign again once the crisis has passed. I have made a handful of minor edits logged out, which you can see at [7]. Please feel free to take your time, and let me know if you want my help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment. This chap was one of our better admins, as if you guys didn’t know. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Only if you rename to Boing! Said Cincinnatus creffett (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee, your last admin action was less than a year ago, so once the 24 hour pause is up I doubt there will be any objections to your return to adminship. Thanks for offering to help. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: no concern, standard 24-hour hold for commentary. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't care where I post this, but I felt an urge. I could have gone for the most visited non-article page, I guess, just wanna say: Good health, good luck, good spirits to all of you, out there, and special thanks, love, and applause [8] to those who are directly involved in fighting what we are facing, globally. All the best. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just to add, above I said I'd "help deal only with coronavirus-related things (broadly construed)". But while there's nothing specific needing done with that I think it will help with the burden if I do some general things (like keeping general troublemakers at bay). Anyway, that's just for the record. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee: You’re fine; we don’t do limited adminship. I’m not sure if you’re aware, but T&S committed to not using partial bans anymore. –xeno^talk 20:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thus utterly missing the point ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Help with any admin tasks helps with COVID-related admin tasks. It helps flattens the curve and ensures that the exponentially-growing disruption doesn't overwhelm our administrative capacity. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Kaisershatner (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   (last admin activity was in March 2013)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Kaisershatner was someone I briefly interacted with over 13 years ago. Makes me sad seeing old names I recognize show up here. :( Acalamari 08:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears to that 2 Crats had there last activity in April 2017 and further Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report needs an update and they need to be notified.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll start it up (working on it at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report/scratch). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I've made a new version of Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report, and will send out notifications. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, you forgot to change the name on Bibliomaniac15's page when you (presumably) copied and pasted. Useight (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, along with link format error. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your prompt action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while, but it seems like I'll be a little more active these days. Slowly working my way back into the groove of things. Thanks Xaosflux and Useight! bibliomaniac15 05:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You're now an active bureaucrat again! :) Acalamari 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back Bibliomaniac15, good to see you around again! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Auspicious! –xeno^talk 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In processing the section above, for at least one person the only recent activity was in the "responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer". Historically, renames were the duty of crats, but that was changed many years ago. Should this type of activity still qualify as "bureaucrat activity" for the purpose of inactivity tracking? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, given that global renamership has its own process of removal for inactivity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'd lean yes - in part because bureaucrats still have the 'final say' on local WP:USURP requests: As the guidelines employed here pre-date global renaming, if there is any dispute as to whether a particular request qualifies for usurpation the request should be referred to local bureaucrats, especially if the case would not otherwise qualify for usurpation under the global process. –xeno^talk 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• ...and per NOTPROCESS, etc., they've done something that looks cratish, so call it cratish, and thereby keep a crat, albeit not a very active one  :) ——SN54129 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• It was historically a crat thing and was never not specially made exclusive from the crat mandate, hence, why not. But otherwise, reasonably anyone who has made no related right-related log action in over three years has no use for the right. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• What xeno said. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• What Dennis Brown said. SilkTork (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• I don't get the rush to de-crat people. Obviously, completely inactive users don't need the tools, but does it really matter if an active editor who rarely uses the tools has the 'bureaucrat' flag? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is up to the community what they want, though, given that the crat tools are not often used these days, the image of a number of crats racing to use the tool on one of the few tasks open simply in order to qualify as being active is not endearing. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Participating in discussions here at BN count as "activity" so it's not hard to do that once every 3 years... — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It's almost impossible not to meet the activity requirements if one wants to (and the requirements were drafted to that end). I'd point out that the present case also had dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat activity in December 2019, so it's not like they're hanging on by a thread. –xeno^talk 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is very liberal and there is a crat whose last log entry is in 2008 and meet crat activity requirements. (Was notified this month).Apart from this one issue which was raised,I do not think there is any other issue. It was raised during this discussion as the crat had not used bureaucrat permissions for a while and was on the top of the list of admins. . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this the criteria: [9] - it includes "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks", which does seem a liberal and dignified criterion. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork: Yes, that is the safe harbour criterion I was alluding to. –xeno^talk 11:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that Crats require the highest acceptance percentage from the community, more than admin, and certainly more than Arbs, I think the community has the highest level of trust, thus the most liberal requirements makes sense. I would rather see a trustworthy Crat that isn't very active, than one that does things only to meet a quota. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• What SilkTork said. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• What OhKayeSierra said. — Ched (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Please remove the administrative rights from my account. I shall be away for a while. Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. Enjoy your time away. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Per the comments above, I have opened an RfC at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Bureaucrat_activity. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. RonBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sad on all counts. Especially sad for Anna, given the circumstances, but I’ll say I admire her convictions even if they’re not my own. Hopefully one day things will change and she’ll be back. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

+1. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Woof, this is a rough one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some incredibly grim news that will make this section even rougher ... Ronhjones passed away on the day he made his last edit, as confirmed by a friend of his I contacted on Facebook, who confirmed that the Wikipedian and their friend were the same person. I can't find any online obituaries but there's his Facebook profile and this edit of his ... tying these together are LinkedIn and this Researchgate link. I'm trying to contact his family.

I hope this isn't out of line .. I wouldn't normally dig this far but I had a funny feeling when I encountered this situation. I'll update the former admins pages; I might do the other procedures later if somebody else hasn't gotten to them by the time I get there. Graham87 12:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Graham87 - I took care of the things for the bot account. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What a loss. I hope his family knows that we on Wikipedia continue to miss him even now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, see my message on the talk page. Graham87 11:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or I had permission. Graham87 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That is very sad, indeed. Useight (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm saddened at their deaths and the manner in which they died but thank you for confirming what happened and the lengths you took to do so, Graham87. Acalamari 18:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I too am extremely saddened not only by their deaths but too in the manner in which they died in, May they both rest in peace ❤️, Thank you Graham for your efforts here. –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oof...that's horrible. Rest in peace. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi 'crats. I need to take some time away from the project (a month to a few months). As a security precaution, please remove my sysop flag. I have a similar request at SRP[10] for my CU flag. SQL^{Query me!} 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Best wishes for your Wikibreak. bibliomaniac15 01:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So I read the rfc (and voiced my opposition), but the more I think about this, the more I am trying to discern the rationale(s). What is the "preventative, not punitive" reason for this?

Concern about the account being hacked? Now that much of renames went global, pretty much anything a bureaucrat can technically do, is presumably reversible.

Concern that the person is "out-of-touch"? Well, as we well know from the "adminship activity standards", editing does not prove that at all. And further, one stays "in touch" by reading, not by editing, so the editing standards really are not indicative of much.

Concern that there are not enough hats to go around, in this virtual environment?

Are we just doing this as a sort of Recentism, or some other unnamed bias against editors we have not personally interacted with? (See also Wikipedia:Systemic_bias.)

Is it perhaps an act of "control", to stem a personal fear that some bureaucrat may "swoop in" and close a discussion in a way we might not like? I'm aware that some see low editing activity as "bad", simply because they feel that they cannot fully bring "pressure" to bear to semipassively "coerce" others into doing what they want, with the implication of harassment/wikistalking and/or various types of disruption to a user's talk page, or articles edited by the user, or discussions they propose or participate in, since, as they are a less active editor, they potentially provide less options to bring to bear. (And yes, this is a real concern of closers and others, with "extra" tools. More than once I've heard a closer say they merely "counted votes", rather than attempting to discern consensus, out of fear of reprisals.)

Or is this simply an "I want x"/"I don't want x"?

I've seen a lot of RFCs in my time, for many stated (and implied) reasons, such as the above.

I ask this sincerely. I think we should take a moment, and assess our motivation here.

I would like to think I am fairly open-minded, and am open to civilly discussing divergent points of view. And I am a firm believer in the "Wiki-way".

So what am I missing here? - jc37 20:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

some other unnamed bias against editors we have not personally interacted with? I think that is somewhat correct, but would phrase it in a more positive tone. Crats, like other advanced permissions, are granted by a community based on trust. In an online community, like any other community, trust is developed through the creation of emotional bonds between individuals. One of the great problems of wikis like ours is that meatball:CommunityMayNotScale; there are so many people in our community that it is impossible for us to interact with everyone, and so our trust needs to operate on something other than our interpersonal connections between people. We come to rely on reputation. Often this reputation is a proxy for the strength, number, and quality of emotional ties one has within the community. As someone spends more time away from a community, their social bonds weaken: those they did know also leave, and new people they don't know join. As this process continues, eventually the member who left is forgotten by the collective because of the demographic changes inherent to a community, and with it their reputation. Wikipedia is interesting in that we have a superordinate goal of building an encyclopedia, so we have an alternate (and in fact, prefered) way to build reputation: working. When someone with permissions representing community trust leaves for a long time and then comes back, the community has a hard time continuing to trust them because the only proxies we have for trust no longer exist; their social and sweat-of-the-brow reputations are gone or diminished. The Crat permission (like others) serves to meatball:RewardReputation and encourage engagement with the community, so when that reputation is lost for whatever reason, the community tries to rectify the situation by removing the symbol of trust. The RfC, and inactivity standards in general, are reflections of the community attempting to decide what level of reputation is necessary to speak for meatball:TheCollective.

That's not to say it's a benign move. As you and Cecropia point out, cutting ties with an absent community member is painful for that member and often for the community as well. In the short term, it may feel like inactivity policies meatball:PunishReputation and serve as a mark of Cain on the participant should they wish to return. I don't think we've had someone return after such a hiatus and then attempt another RfX, so I don't think this is something we know. The problem is that, even if it doesn't punish reputation, it does dissuade reputation making it less appealing for a community member to return. That's a cost, but many people think it is an acceptable cost given that someone has already de facto left the community. People move on in their lives, and the community should be able to move on too. Having a tool by which the community and an absent member can part ways is a net positive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I love this analysis and I love meatballwiki. Killiondude (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wugapodes, for your thoughtful - (I'm intending Shakespeare-like usage meaning thought-filled) - comments.

I too enjoy reading Meatball Wiki (I link to it on my user page : )

That said, I am pondering your comments, and find I am caught between conflicting assertions with regards to your comments on reputation.

If I am reading you correctly, you first suggest that trust may equate to reputation. And then suggest that, due to scale, editors may feel that the best way to illustrate reputation, is by "working", by which, I presume you mean, amassing edits/building a review-able edit history.

But then you suggest that lack of engagement/interaction with others causes a decline of someone's reputation.

Doesn't this seem like a contradiction in terms?

And that aside, why are we presuming an editor's amassed edits have a shelf life? This is a wiki, and each person's edits are still there to see, for now and always. Are we to presume that time=distrust? I'm not sure why that should be. The same edits are there, which caused us as a community to support their RFB, so, why would we stop AGF of an editor with no evidence to do so?

And while we're on the subject of reputation, one of the values that the community has oft-stated to look for in a bureaucrat is (to try to put it succinctly) an almost quiescent, level-headed nature. And discovering wiki editing habits of less-than-high-activity would seem to me to not be surprising in such a person.

So all that said, if you are suggesting that the reasons you stated, are the reasons for the rfc, I can believe your assertion, but that as a rationale just doesn't sound appropriate as a (set of) criteria for establishing trust. It almost sounds like a rationale for why we are building distrust. And I'm not sure that that is what we as collegiate encyclopedia builders should be doing.

So I guess I reiterate: What am I missing? - jc37 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I had guessed you would appreciate them! I wasn't around during the heyday of wikis, and I wish meta had more of meatball-like community (maybe it does and I'm just missing it). I think my post was less a reason why we ought to have inactivity requirements and more a theory on why discussions on inactivity criteria seem to be a recurring theme. You're right to criticize it, and I think your points make sense. Dweller asked a (presumably rhetorical) question in his opposition: "Why do we so often chase people away from the project instead of concentrating on making people feel welcome?" I think it's something we need to grapple with, and I said elsewhere that maybe inactivity requirements are an c2:AntiPattern. The problem is we rarely have counter proposals. How do we get inactive crats back, or at the very least, convince them to say goodbye before leaving? Same with admins, or really any other editor. I don't know.

Your points about reputation are all interesting to think about. One point I really like is The same edits are there, which caused us as a community to support their RFB, so, why would we stop AGF of an editor with no evidence to do so? I think it's that social dynamics just don't work like that. In the abstract, I agree that the edits should stand for themselves, but I think the community aspect of the encyclopedia leads to dynamics that undercut that ideal. Maybe Wikipedia has become more meta:Metapedian over time?

But to your point about reputation and contradiction, I think of it more like a leaky bucket. As long as the hose is on, you'll fill it, but if you leave the hose off for too long, all the water leaks out. But I think we need more than a two-value logic system; the empty bucket isn't distrust, but simply neutrality. We could also fill the bucket with sewer run-off and people would distrust the person carrying around a bucket full of sewage. That bucket also leaks, and if the person stops trying to fill it with sewage, eventually they'll also be at neutral, and can eventually fill it with water and be welcomed back into the community similar to how we handle vandalism and unblocks and such. That doesn't really answer your question, and I think I also conflated a diachronic analysis and a synchronic analysis which might be why it's a little confusing. This is more musings than a solid argument for why we should do things a certain way. I think you're raising interesting questions, and I appreciate that you're pressing the community to think about them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes put it much better than I could have but I will add in terms of the honoring of past work, I would strongly support SilkTork's proposal to give former crats a usergroup that recognized this fact. In this way should they return to the project (and I hope they do since I believe among the best places to find "new" editors are people who edited here in the past) they can get respect owed to them for their past service while building the reputation and doing the work Wugapodes described. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I do appreciate the sentiment, but if we get technical, we're all Wikipedians here. Aren't we all "emeritus" after being "auto-confirmed"? I don't know if we should be so focused on editcount-itis or the "when" of the timestamps of an edit. Are we really telling editors: "Thanks, but what have you done for me lately." ? - jc37 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. User groups are (ideally) assigned based on whether assigning this user group to a certain user will be beneficial to the project in that this user can now help out more. There is a reason why the symbols for admins and crats are a mop and a wrench respectively. They denote that these are technical, often thankless, jobs that are restricted merely because we cannot trust everyone to use them correctly. They are not achievements that should be put on display for the sake of having them (an idea that Wikipedia:Hat collecting describes pretty well). A "former crat" usergroup would only serve a single purpose: To give these users a hat to proudly present on their userpage (or wherever else). Because "respect" is not something that comes with having a certain hat (or multiple hats). There are plenty of "non-hatted" users I respect greatly just like I assume there are plenty of users who do not respect me just because I have certain hats. Regards SoWhy 05:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As a point of order, why is this discussion happening here rather than at the actual RfC, where such meta discussions would typically occur? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking merely for myself, it's here for several reasons, including that I think it's actually beyond the scope of the rfc, and could potentially derail it or at the very least muddy the waters there. AFAICT, I believe that what I'm asking about, is more sort of "self-reflective", and a bit broader in topic than that at the rfc. And besides that, WP:BN is, AFAIK, the appropriate place to discuss such "meta" matters of this topic. - jc37 00:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Especially now that the other threads are achived, this thread has been robbed of context to the point of barely being comprehensible. I think it should be moved to the RfC's talk page. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

When Cecropia started a section similar to this it became unpleasant rather quickly. I could see this one going a similar route had it been posted there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To respond to a minor point above made by Wugapodes, we have in fact had users who have had a successful RFA after lengthy inactivity. I recall Opabinia regalis after her second RFA; the List of resysopped users also brings up Abecedare; his RFA was in the same month as Opabinia regalis's, as it happens. I can't find any failed RFA's after lengthy inactivity, at least by checking the relevant list. Graham87 04:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• The OP states most crat actions are reversible. However, a re-sysop is not, unless a messy abcom case in started. That is essentially the sole reason why I supported the RfC. I do like the "emeritus" idea. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I do believe there is a concern regarding an absentee editor's familiarity with current norms on Wikipedia, but you are correct that this involves reading rather than editing. I think there are many editors who like to feel that decisions affecting them are made by people who have some skin in the game, so to speak: some current investment of time and effort that provides motivation to safeguard Wikipedia and its community. To a first approximation, this gets translated into "makes edits on Wikipedia". Beyond that, some editors have the philosophy that advanced permissions are granted to users so they can act as proxies to implement community consensus, and thus if they are not actively fulfilling this role, the permissions aren't needed and the community should reclaim them. (For purposes of this discussion, I am ignoring the security principle of least privileges; based on past discussions, it's an important consideration to some but not to a lot of others.) Because of the self-selection bias in any Wikipedia discussion, I believe these views have greater prominence in these discussions than they might with a more representative sampling of the community. isaacl (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the "skin in the game" argument is that it implies that those who have put in vast amounts of time into this project, but have been off wiki in recent years, don't have "skin in the game". Of course they do. The need to refresh and update one's knowledge of the wiki, the risk of long dormant accounts becoming compromised, and the risk of deteriorating faculties are real issues and less contentious to discuss. We can differ on how long one can leave a project before skills atrophy and values change, and on whether RFA should be a test of character and judgment - things that deteriorate little with age until dementia sets in, or a test of policy knowledge, which obviously fades more quickly with disuse. As a real world example, a couple of years ago I acquired a car for the first time in over a decade. My driving licence was fine, I passed my test when I was 19 and it will need renewing when I'm 70. But my no claims bonus had gone and has had to be rebuilt. The reason why we keep rehashing this debate is that the bit of the community that cares about this is divided between those who echo those two perspectives, we lack the rigorous evidence base that insurance companies use to calculate no claims bonuses, and we differ between those who see our pool of inactive and former admins as deadweight, or as part of the same community as us and including some of the people who will be keeping this place going for decades after I and other greybeards here have kicked the bucket. ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

For better or worse, ongoing engagement in the form of participation on the site is one of the few measures available to try to estimate if someone remains committed to English Wikipedia's current set of policies, guidelines, and norms. Trust in a small community is easier to establish, when everyone knows each other. Once this is no longer possible, people look for concrete measures to try to evaluate trust. Although I appreciate that some editors feel quite upset at the difference between the difficulty in obtaining advanced privileges versus what has to be done to retain them, personally I think many of them overestimate the degree to which the community at large shares these feelings. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing engagement is certainly a measure of commitment, and one that gets overvalued by people who mentally compare wikipedia to a work environment. Remembering that wikipedia is a volunteer environment, and one less than twenty years old, the challenge facing us is how do we keep the door open to former regulars when divorce, redundancy, retirement or other vicissitudes of life put them into a situation where they have the time to resume an old hobby. There is a lesser issue of doing this in a way that screens out compromised accounts and the like. Part of the problem is how one defines the community, if you think of it as just the currently active, you are liable to come to a different conclusion than if you think it also includes those who will return in future decades, or who might if we don't create excessive barriers against them. ϢereSpielChequers 19:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

While I think it is a good idea to make it easy to return to the English Wikipedia community, I don't think this means it is necessary for editors to retain their advanced permissions while they are away. I think an initial increase in engagement is useful for the editor to re-establish or make new connections with others, in order to re-integrate with the community. For me, this isn't due to parallels with a work environment per se, but rather any gathering place where a community interacts and discusses matters of common interest, thereby building up a sense of camaraderie. isaacl (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WSC, I'm strongly in favor of making it easy for old volunteers to return to the fold. We should find ways to encourage them to do so. We should develop documentation to make it easy for them to figure out what's changed (because much will not have changed leaving their skills and expertise ready to go). But I can think of at least one concrete example in a volunteer organization I served where a former board member who'd been away for years wanted to re-engage with the organization. There were lots of ways that the organization worked to do just that. But, as a board member at the time, we didn't put them right back on the board. A little while later we did, but until then we took advantage of that skill and expertise by working with them in other ways and giving them other leadership opportunities. I'd love for an old crat to return and start closing difficult RfCs. Or help BAG, or weigh-in on whatever areas they had skills with before. But they can do all that without being a crat (at least right away). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, we aren't as far apart as you think. I'm thinking in terms of a day with renewed activity for each year of absence before resuming userights as the sort of direction that I would like to see the community move in. Of course trustee is a role with limited hats - more comparable to Arbcom than adminship or crats. ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little out of the loop due to real life things at the moment. Which RfC is this? I couldn't see a link to it anywhere in this section. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Here you are, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Bureaucrat activity. Stephen 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stephen: Thank you. I was aware of that RfC, but the discussion here seemed to be about something different. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The trigger for the RfC was the discussion at the now archived thread Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 43#Cecropia wants to remain an available bureaucrat. Stephen 08:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I read that. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion at wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Interface_admin_and_view_deleted_access about view access and the interface admin activity policy. Alerting here since this is where requests for access are made. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Per this thread at VPP, there's a bug in the IAdmin implementation that doesn't let admins see deleted interface pages. There are a few sockmasters that are my "regular" cases where having access to deleted .js and .css userpages would be useful. I have zero interest in ever using the actual parts of the tool, but there seems to be consensus I have a valid need and its a fine use case even if there's no public evidence I'm using it. Anyway, I'm aware of the 48 hour hold and confirm I have 2FA enabled. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Though this isn't a normal reason for needing this flag, with phab:T202989 outstanding and the requester being a trusted functionary I don't see any concerns with this. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: @Wugapodes: may be able to fix the patch, and I should be able to review and (if everything works fine and there aren't any issues) I'll merge it DannyS712 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I’m still requesting this until such a time it’s deployed and works. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• The standard requirements are that users are "highly trusted, have at least a basic understanding of CSS and JS, are aware of the privacy expectations of Wikimedia wikis, and have a decent understanding of how to secure their accounts". The community have said that the user should be an admin. WMF have said that the user should have 2FA. With Tony's confirmation of 2FA all boxes are ticked, except I am unaware if Tony has "a basic understanding of CSS and JS". @TonyBallioni: - would you say you have at least a basic understanding of CSS and JS? As regards the 6 month rule - I don't see that 'Crats can change that as there was a RfC in which the consensus was that the right would be removed from users who don't use it for at least six months: [11]. Either Tony would have to re-request every 6 months (which is not too tedious, and would be promptly accepted without having to wait 48 hours), or the community holds a RfC to see if they are willing to amend the ruling for circumstances such as this. I would say that I would not rush to remove Tony's IAdmin right after 6 months, but I couldn't go against consensus and say that Tony would be explicitly allowed to ignore that rule. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a programmer, but I understand the basics involved and know enough to do basic fixes in people’s common.js if someone was asking for help. I also know enough to know I shouldn’t do more than that :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:IADMIN says that interface admins who meet the inactivity criteria "should have the user right removed" but does not spell out a process for doing so. Perhaps we can automatically notify interface admins whose access is about to expire and ask them to confirm if they still need it? A simple reply should suffice, because we don't need people making dummy edits to satisfy the activity requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

      Well, there's a bot run by JJMC89 that posts to WP:IANB when someone is going to be inactive, but unlike with inactive sysops there's no automatic notice, etc. It's a very rare process given how few there are; there have been ~six reports in the nearly two years of the group existing, three in the past year. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as meeting all requirements. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Done. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Good morning, I would be grateful if you will resysop me. My desysop request of 14 April is here. Thank you, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no issues, standard 24 hour hold. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with Primefac. bibliomaniac15 01:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done UninvitedCompany 00:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Tim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. TheCoffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ¹
3. John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

¹Last logged action March 2013

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that the message text at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#Boilerplates matches neither policy, {{Inactive_admin}}, nor the emails generated by the bot. Any objections if I update the project page to refer to the template? UninvitedCompany 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

None here, those are just references. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BE BOLD! bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. UninvitedCompany 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably the wrong place to ask this, but I can't find the original RFA for John despite quite a bit of searching. Am I missing something? QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guinnog Maxim_(talk) 11:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI: DeltaQuad is now AmandaNP following a rename request (meta:Special:PermaLink/20216516#DeltaQuad). As crat renames are infrequeent, thought it would be useful to leave a note here. Good luck with your new username Amanda! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the RFA redirect for AmandaNP should point to the first RFA, and another one "AmandaNP 2" for "DeltaQuad 2". Stuff like MoreMenu automatically picks up the last one (I think?) Pinging Xeno who made the redirect, not a big thing but probably worth evaluating. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK: The script I used to use to view these things isn't working so I wasn't able to test my work. So if your script is not looking correct, then go ahead and make whatever changes you think will be beneficial. –xeno^talk 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

   Done --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Jujutacular (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Monty845 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 11:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

...has Jujutacular been twice as inactive as the others  :) ——Serial ^# 11:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Someone please restart the xaosflux cron  ;) –xeno^talk 12:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

   Doing... :) — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Don't think I’ve ever seen someone as prolific as Rettetast appear here - 158,000 edits! P-K3 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks, Amorymeltzer, for the fix. @Pawnkingthree:: last month we desysopped Tim, who had over 962,000 edits, and the month before we desysopped the sadly departed Ronhjones, who had over 416,000 edits. Graham87 13:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Done with thanks for prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mop restored. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Moved from WT:BN

Euryalus (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)}

Hi all,

I'd like to request a return of admin tools, which were voluntarily resigned here. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Excited to see this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good by the numbers, standard hold is of course in place. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Useight (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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