User talk:Xeno/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xeno. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

WP:CHU/U

Any chance this could just be forwarded to m:SRUC? Local crats are no longer able to carry out the technical process of local usurping, and the (so-far undecided but commonly practised) criteria for a global usurp would seem to be much more strict than the enwiki policy. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Damn :P Mlpearc (open channel) 19:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Local 'crats who are global renamers can still process usurpations when the account is global (with only en.wiki and incidental unused attachments) (e.g. 1 2 3). After the global usurp criteria is decided, then yes, probably (assuming it isn't unduly restrictive). –xeno^talk 19:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair, I suppose. I'd prefer to have things moving towards being centralized now, but I can understand the desire to hold back in lieu of a decided-upon global usurpation policy. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked once or twice if the community wants to shuffle renaming to meta and didn't find much traction. Either because they don't care or they don't think it's a good idea, I don't know. –xeno^talk 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls?

Why is it so? It seems to flow from the transcluion of User talk:Xeno/header but that's as far as I can figure. –xeno^talk 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

One (or more) templates used on that page has configuration on code that uses same arguments (like |a= and then |a=) for more than one time. — Revi 05:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find that slice of code, this is the problem. –xeno^talk 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's (likely) the problem on the code of the templates used on that page, not that page. — Revi 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Technical 13 can find it. As payment, I fixed my signature =p –xeno^talk 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Botz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Botz. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Botz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Be..anyone (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Xeno, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Renaming username

Sorry for the inconvenience i created on my talk page about uspuration. i want to say that this account can be named to aGastya (aG_astya is also preferable). and the user which has appealed for uspuration of username can have it. but as both accounts belong me, I want to say that can the account AgastyaC be rename to acagastya (all letters in the lower case?) thanks! --Acagastya (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think you're all set. Usernames unfortunately cannot be all lowercase but you can use something like {{lowercase}} to make it appear so on your user page and also have a custom signature. –xeno^talk 12:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Best regards, –xeno^talk 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I entered Wikipedia just few days ago, but I really wanted to say thank you. You changed my username as I wanted although I was unskilled and poor in every system around Wikipedia. I was very confused that I made a big mistake ; not typing my email address to the account. Now I am really happy that I can use my nickname as I wanted at first. I will never forget about your kindness. It's my first time to feel appreciation here. Thank you again !--CloudyAgenda (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help, CloudyAgenda, and welcome to the project. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Email sent

Just to let you know. I also made a mistake in it. Sunday, not Saturday. Risker (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iw-ref

Template:Iw-ref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Name change

Just a courtesy thank you for the move and for the spontaneous response. --FAT RAT (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. Cheers, –xeno^talk 18:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for giving me my new username!

DawnDusk (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename

Hi Xeno, see [1]. You recently helped this user usurp a name, which they are now asking to rename away from again. This is a learning experience for me (I never encountered it before), and I have asked them to explain their reasons. This user has 11 edits. I personally only usurp if a user has at least a couple hundred edits so this kind of thing does not happen. This incident is one of the reasons I have in mind. All the best, Taketa (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In the past this was the rule of thumb (I suppose, still is), seems I've gotten soft in my old age; also in this case the desired username was dormant since 9 years. So in some cases I grant the request in the interest of editor retention. As to the multiple renames back-and-forth, I don't know and asking them to explain seems reasonable prior to proceeding. –xeno^talk 21:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BN request

[Asking you because you're the only bureaucrat who's edited in the last twelve hours] Sorry to be pestering, but would it be possible for you to check on my WP:BN request to resume administrative rights? Just above the question to which you responded (unified accounts), I requested resysop, but that was nearly 48 hours ago, and no response; perhaps people didn't notice it, due to the second question. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to properly evaluate it (since mailing list); give me a few minutes. –xeno^talk 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Salv rename

I'm in a bit of a situation whatwith the auto-renaming of one of my accounts. Can I be so bold as to come to you directly for help? I've tried going through the automated system but something seems to have bungled up and I've tried e-mailing the Stewards list but I don't think that's very efficient either. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure; what's happening and what outcome do you desire? –xeno^talk 22:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been using "Salv" as an enwiki local "shortcut"/doppelganger to my full username "Salvidrim!", and it is useful because I sometimes receive pings through it.

Now it has been auto-renamed to "Salv~enwiki"

I want "Salv~enwiki" renamed to "Salv" (and/or to be able to control the "Salv" global account). I am unsure what the exact process is, but I assume it will entail renaming the no.wikinews "Salv" account to "Salv~nowikn" (it has been unused since 2008 and is not active whatsoever), then "Salv~enwiki" to "Salv".

Please let me know if there is anything you require of me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Since it's a user from another project I am hesitant to usurp the account since I don't think it's permitted by the global rename policy . Did Stewards write back? Perhaps you could ask at m:SRUC. –xeno^talk 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe whoops

Hello xeno, I'm a little confused, was my removal of of that comment at Opabinia regalis's RfA wrong or out of line ? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think your removal was fine [2]; alternatively you could have simply moved it down into the "General comments" section (perhaps with a note that it was moved there from the questions section). –xeno^talk 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, That's what I thought you meant. Thanx for clarifying. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for advising me of the discussion at WP:BN where my name was brought up. I appreciate you letting me know and your comments in the discussion. Tijuana Brass (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And thank you, also, for informing me as well. I did a quick administrative action earlier in order to have a fresh log entry. I put a note in the log summary regarding my current lack of activity just in case someone had a question or concern about it that I might not see for some time. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to be of service =) –xeno^talk 18:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Very confused

Im not sure why, but whenever someone posts on your talk page, I get a notification in my account... SwagMaster2030 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Every single time or just where your userpage was mentioned above? –xeno^talk 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's the pings -- sorry about that SwagMaster2030 (this should ping you again), we're trying to figure out something that may or may not have happened to the history of your talk page when you were renamed. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait, your right. Sorry! SwagMaster2030 (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about cleanup following user rename

Copied to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Rather serious rename bug

Hello Xeno. Please could you take a look at User talk:SwagMaster2030? I found this page at Special:DoubleRedirects and I thought I might be able to help by simply removing the invalid circular redirect. But then I got to wondering whether the sequence of events (two consecutive page moves) could have destroyed some page history and whether it might be better to have an admin check it out? Likewise User:SwagMaster2030 and User talk:Tabletrack – the latter, with a similar history, I did edit before I had this thought. Just trying to err on the side of caution. Thanks a lot. – Wdchk (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's weird; I can't find any deleted history. Not sure why those circular redirects were created. –xeno^talk 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The user moved the talk page from Percy to Swag while requesting the rename, moving the history to Swag and leaving a redirect at Percy. Then, when Xeno renamed, it moved Percy over Swag -- which means, moved the redirect revision at Percy over the existing history at Swag, and left a "new" redirect at Percy. The result is that both pages are redirects to Swag. The bug is that the auto pagemove done during renaming "crushed" the existing history at Swag -- it should be in "deleted revisions" if moved normally, but it isn't. I wonder if that happens everytime you rename a user and the userpages at the new name have histories -- they become crushed instead of deleted. Is this something you have encountered before? Is there a fix (restoring from database or whatnot)? This sounds like something that could be tested using dummies, and if it does happen everytime, it is definitely something that needs to be taken into account when renaming (histories at userpages of target username) -- to avoid being crushed, they may need to be "moved out of the way" and histmerged back in after the rename is done. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think such a thing was possible, certainly sounds buggy. @Amalthea: any idea about this? –xeno^talk

I'll ask Graham87 about it too -- he's probably the user with the deepest knowledge about page histories. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim: I have absolutely no idea where the page history went, either. Perhaps this should be taken to Phabricator? Graham87 07:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is SwagMaster2030! I can't find my OWN user page? What should I do? SwagMaster2030 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi SwagMaster2030. This appears to be a rather serious and high-priority bug where revisions can be eliminated via renaming and no longer available for admins to retrieve. I have replicated the bug and destroyed revision 659870568 [3] [4].

User moves their userpage to a desired new name
User later requests rename
Rename ends up moving the user-created redirect over the proper target and old revisions are nowhere to be found.

Expected behaviour: Old revisions would be available in the deleted edits.

~~I'm hoping someone can file it, I don't have the time at present.~~ @Salvidrim!, Avraham, MBisanz, Acalamari, Legoktm, Keegan (WMF), and MZMcBride:. Wdchk thank you for bringing this to our attention! –xeno^talk 13:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Filed @ phabricator:T97532. –xeno^talk 14:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Xeno: I'm sure you get a lot of these, probably to the point where you start getting tired seeing them, but I still wanted to send you one of these as a most sincere thank you for your work in, well, everywhere. Almost all the time when I see you comment in a discussion, your comment seems to be reasonable and prudent, and you use just the right mix of rule-following and common sense. Thank you for your service on Wikipedia. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235, not at all, it's always nice to know that my work is appreciated and I definitely appreciate you taking the time out of your day to let me know =). Best regards, –xeno^talk 23:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Old deletion

You had deleted an article back in 2009,[5] I am not sure whether it has been created by same person or not or even if the article has not been changed. Can you check it is has been changed or not compared to what it was in 2009? Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. It's significantly different; the previous article was a poorly generated substub consisting of just an infobox, categories, and this content:

 Rent A Friend  is a 2000 Dutch film directed by []]."

(syntax error in original) –xeno^talk 12:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. From what I have checked today, I remember about 3 articles (Martha Tabor, Lindsey Tippins, Ed Harbison) that had been deleted before. Can you help me in naming those admins who had deleted them? I usually write down, but this time names are bit swapped. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the logs, only Ed Harbison has been deleted (by Fetchcomms); unless the first two were deleted under a different article title and later moved. –xeno^talk 11:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually thought that there is some provision to check them all through admin tools. Since you had suggested that they might have been moved, in such circumstances it is better to also check the talk pages, I checked by the talk pages and found who had deleted them.[6][7] Thanks again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look to the talk pages. It doesn't seem like the articles (Tippins, Tabor) themselves were ever deleted, just the talk pages. The Tippins was vandalism, the Tabor was tags and assessments:

{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=Start|listas=Tabor, Martha}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|DC=Yes|DC-importance=Low|TN=Yes|TN-importance=Low}}

Hope that helps. –xeno^talk 17:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

Hello. I am notifying you that the above is currently being considered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura, and your input (positive, negative, or otherwise) is invited there. You have received this notification and invitation as you participated in the previous ban appeal in 2009 and may be familiar with or remember some of the earlier context, you may be aware of other matters which are relevant to the appeal, or you may wish to express whether or not your view has changed since the last discussion. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

T-shirt barnstar

Dear Xeno, I have nominated you for a T-shirt. Thank you for your contributions to Wikimedia! Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How nice! Those shirts look pretty cool. Thanks for your kind words Taketa, your contributions are appreciated as well :) –xeno^talk 18:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks. That was fast! Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Dougweller is a redirect but DougWeller, my first account, no longer exists. Should I logout and create it as a Doppelgänger account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, it looks like special:CentralAuth/DougWeller was given to a fr user, your old account is probably now special:CentralAuth/DougWeller~enwiki. You should re-create Dougweller as a doppel. In fact, if you want I can go ahead and rename "DougWeller~enwiki" to Dougweller. Just make an edit from that account to confirm ownership (or put it through Special:GlobalRenameRequest if you don't want to make a fresh edit). Thanks for the strawberries =) –xeno^talk 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If you would rename it, please. Thanks. But, these edits[[8]] are mine to an article about my uncle. Something else odd as when I go to the user page it's Doug Weller. In any case it looks as though DougWeller is still Mr. Doug Weller (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I moved "DougWeller~enwiki" to "Dougweller". And if you wrote those fr.wiki edits, you probably have controler of DougWeller globally as well. –xeno^talk 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all sorted now. Doug Weller (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Old tags

Hi xeno! Long time we have not talked. I am trying to cleanup User:AnomieBOT/Nobots Hall of Shame. Am I right to believe that I should remove all tags that are about Xenobot Mk V? They are most probably outdated by now. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Yes Magioladitis, that should be fine. I don't run the bot anymore. Cheers, –xeno^talk 10:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Only real bot owners are allowed to be at the Hall of Shame. lol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a list, let alone that poor Mk V was one of the front runners! –xeno^talk 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

SharedIPArchiveBot

Hi again. Can you please remove the bot flag of SharedIPArchiveBot? The bot is inactive for 3 years and as a BAG we started a cleanup process. Petrb has agreed with the removal. They can get the flag back whenever the bot gets active again. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, will do so shortly. The last time that we did a large scale removal of Bot flags, we did not notify the operators ahead of time. Can we be sure to do this on this occasion? –xeno^talk 12:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I only request this one and I already contacted Petrb on IRC. We can of course do a second run of mass bot flags removal but I am not ready for this right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done sounds good, let me know if you need any other removals. –xeno^talk 12:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Some stats I was interested in

Do you if I can find out many articles including deleted article have been created on Wikipedia and how many currently deleted article have survived at least one AfD? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't know how to generate these stats. You could try alas king at WP:VPT but you might want to explain what the data would be useful for, as there may be some work involved in gathering it. –xeno^talk 11:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Global renamer policy question

Per your suggestion, I have begun studying the global rename policy carefully. There is one part of the policy that I'm not quite clear on and would like some clarification:

The old name is duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks.

Could you clarify this sentence? Thanks, --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This means that the redirects from the old name to the new name are created (not prevented from creation in the interface; there are legitimate reasons one might want to do this e.g. usurpation or privacy-related requests). Of course, the link is also implicitly provided by the rename log. –xeno^talk 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Global rename nomination

Hey Xeno, as you have asked to be notified of this, I've nominated myself for the global rename tool over at Meta Wiki. Thanks, --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and best of luck on your candidacy. Hope to see you in the global rename logs soon :) –xeno^talk 16:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Help Urgent

This is regarding usurp of two of my accounts User:PawanAhuja and User:PawanAhuja1. I am on the verge of loosing access to my primary account due to misplace of password. I have linked both the accounts. Hope that helps in any way. I know that it might be very early for unsurp but I wanted to edit Wikipedia under my own name and that's why I did not want to loose access over this account. I can't add email preference as it asks for current password. I look forward for your helping hand. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I could go ahead with the usurp now if you want, and hopefully Stewards could merge the accounts later on. –xeno^talk 19:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Will the unsurp retain my edit history and good will as well? I am currently working thoroughly on patrolling recent changes. Thanks PawanAhuja (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That could be done with a merge but it won't be possible til later. You should make a request at m:SRUC to merge the accounts so that the master account is the one you know the password for. –xeno^talk 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Resysopping

I see the discussion closed but the question's still valid. From memory - over seven years ago now! - I think the point was something like this:

The requirement to be sure the bit is back in rightful hands first, has always been there AFAIK, but admins have a responsibility to secure their accounts, and apparent sloppy security leading to account misuse can and has led to desysopping/denial of resysopping in its own right. (That's from memory, can't remember specific cases this long but I think I'm right).

However..... for a voluntary or self-requested resysop (if AC haven't been involved and ruled), a request for extended discussion or oxygen by 'crats is pretty much the only point where the question could be raised whether there is some question mark/controversy related to security issues, before assuming it should go ahead. As 'crats have always had an element of discretion in resysopping, and are trusted specifically to assess and seek oxygen if needed on uncertain grants of the bit, they'd presumably be trusted to refer the matter for discussion (BN) or to the community (RFA) or even to AC if the need arose (many 'crats have CU/OS and may have nonpublic knowledge of concerns or issues) if they weren't sure what was best to do. So if a 'crat has a doubt, or concern over some aspect of security or account misuse or whether or not it was a "roommate", to the extent that they need to consult before resysopping or aren't comfortable with the requested action, then that view wouldn't be lightly formed; therefore such a view - if it were the case - should probably be respected and trusted, and opportunity given to explore it. But especially, the previous wording "provided they can determine that the administrator is back in control" tends to imply that the account is back in safe hands and the lapse can be viewed as historical and the user will act responsibly and be extra careful in future. The old wording seems to imply (and may indeed have been understood, I can't remember which this long after) not just "in control right now" but "likely to retain control" and that the reasons control was lost are likely to be learned from or be exceptional/"once-off", so it can be relied on as securely managed per WP:ADMIN going forward. But suppose the 'crats were not confident of this or had reasons for doubting it? Then they probably should do... what? I probably felt that taking both these lines of thought into account, it should be more unambiguous that 'crat discretion can cover cases where there is a real ongoing concern to the circumstances of a matter or the handling of matters by the user seeking their bit back, even if there isn't a formal ruling on it. Not least, if it wasn't clear one way or the other, it would be a route to drama. Since we trust 'crats to make the call about the extent of community and other concerns in almost all other non-AC sysoppings, we presumably trust them if they felt that sort of concern just a bit too much to go blithely ahead with the requested auto-resysopping on autopilot, or if they asked the user to use another route instead. This isn't the same as a veto, because a 'crat can't actually stop someone being given the bit. It's recognition that the community does wish 'crats to act with judgment, and that means if there might be a doubt about WP:ADMIN compliance and the user wants their resysop now, they may need breathing space to discuss it or raise it, or even ask the user to check if they have community trust first (RFA isn't a punishment; the case would be widely known and if the user has trust the responses to reconfirmation or resysop RFAs tend to clearly and very speedily show it).

I don't know if that would be the view of the matter in 2015, and can't recall if it was discussed or "just seemed a sensible point to clarify", but as far as I can figure, that was the thinking, at the time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks FT2, this is helpful. I linked your reply below the original question on BN. –xeno^talk 13:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: User:Pam955

Hi Xeno, I unlocked the user: however, the contribution of self-promotion and single-purpose do not appear to conform to itwiki policy, I am afraid that will be locked again. Ciao! --Euphydryas (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

LambandCooper

Regarding the block - it was a more borderline case than some, but he did sneak in a couple of links to his website, and I do take quite a strong position against using WP for advertising. —SMALL JIM 14:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I saw you integrating their edits and it seemed they could have been extended a softer welcome with a milder redirection to positive editing in non-promotional ways. Thanks for the explanation. –xeno^talk 14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Workshopping bureaucrat activity requirements

(Message to all bureaucrats)

There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.

In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.

Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. –xeno^talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a whole lot of time to devote, but I would like to be more active. It is a bit daunting to become active again, since conventions and expectations may have changed. Perhaps I will read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and brush up. (Would you recommend any other resources?) I've valued having a role to play with Wikipedia, and would like to take an active part in the near future. -cprompt (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cprompt, thanks for checking in. To be honest, ever since local renaming went away there really isn't tonnes of work for us bureaucrats, especially if you aren't a global renamer. You could try applying for the userright if you wanted to help out with renames. Every so often we get a burst of activity at WP:BN (you can see an example there right now) and as an old hand I'm sure you'd be able to lend perspective to such threads. While they're rarer these days, there's always RFAs that you could watch over and make sure things go smoothly there. Sometime in the near future, I'm thinking of proposing adding a task to keep us busier but that's still to come. Maybe as a start you could refresh yourself on administrative work and start there, while you regain familiarity with the bureaucrat's role. –xeno^talk 00:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Usurp

Check WP:USURP--Fgdt5r78698778 (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The part that says your request will be processed around July 9 or the part that says "In order to ensure that usurped usernames be put to good use, we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users."? –xeno^talk 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Undo vanishing?

In light of this, can/should the account User:Vanished user oinwn4toindcin23rjnsd be moved back to User:Zaketo? Let me know if there is a better venue for asking this question (haven't much delved into the WP:CHU area of wikipedia). Abecedare (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's bring in Nihonjoe since he processed the vanishing via the mailing list. I'd rather not reverse it without their comment. –xeno^talk 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've only been involved in one unvanishing, done at WP:AN to build a consensus first (there was a LOT of socking going on in that case, SA). Is vanishing something you can do without a consensus? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We're usually fairly lighthanded in granting vanish requests; having to build a consensus to vanish would kind of run counter to the whole endeavour. –xeno^talk 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to UNvanishing someone. (I left off the second un) I understand why we are easy at giving, but taking it away is not so easy a decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. In that case I believe there were bona fide privacy concerns; unless I'm mistaken, "Zaketo" is just some nickname widely used by others and the sockmaster alike. And certainly they don't seem to mind having "Zaketo" connected to sockpuppetry, as they've just recreated the name some minutes ago. I did raise this on the bureaucrats mailing list a few minutes ago, in any case. –xeno^talk 21:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Btw I noticed that the Zaketo (talk · contribs) account was (re)created a few minutes back. @Bbb23: is it possible to check if this was created by the sock-master or someone unconnected, which will result in a lot of confusion as I had commented here (WP:BEANS?). Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Strategic creation against unvanishing? Plot thickens. –xeno^talk 21:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, the account is now blocked. How am I supposed to tag it, though? The others I tagged as confirmed socks of Zaketo, even though Zaketo doesn't exist. Seemed like a nice mixture of sensible and senseless. Can't you vanish the new Zaketo and unvanish the real Zaketo's vanished account back as Zaketo? Wouldn't that be fun?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I was more thinking Zaketo -> Chemicalstrips, then (Vanished one) -> Zaketo. –xeno^talk 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting to sound like a "going back in time and killing your grandfather" paradox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

← Unless there's any particular urgency to this, let's wait for Nihonjoe to advise. There have been examples of vanishing despite socking (not necessarily ongoing, mind), and I don't want to reverse his decision if this was the case. –xeno^talk 23:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No real hurry. Moving around the accounts is important only for future sock investigations when current memory has faded (which in my case happens in just a few days), and the separation of the account name from its actual editing history creates confusion. Abecedare (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been completed, let me know if I missed anything. –xeno^talk 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the unvanishing. This is clearly spelled out in the the guideline (2nd paragraph, last sentence): "If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." I would even support changing it to "...will be fully reversed..." since that's been the defacto way of handling such cases for the last few years (and I've done a number of them myself). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why bother changing the deck chairs? We should just mark that page "historical" and point people to global rename. The current process has almost never been used in the way it was intended, based on some user essay on another wiki that someone thought was kind of cool. They want a rename? ask for a rename. They want to break the connection? Get a rename then they can scramble their password and move on. Almost *all* "vanished" users return. Most of them we never notice. Risker (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanishing is (sometimes) more than just the rename component, though. It's basically a process that allows one to invoke the right to be forgotten, and I don't really think shuttering it is necessary and could generate more ill will than leaving it in place. –xeno^talk 10:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd dispute that. In reality, "vanishing" is renaming an account (which can be done anyway), probably deleting userspace pages but not necessarily talk pages (at the request of the vanishing user), and then telling them never to darken our doors again or else we'll reverse everything we've just done. There's no "forgetting" here at all; the edits remain attributed to the account, anywhere that the user has signed will lead back to the renamed account, and nothing gets deleted outside of the userspace. That's renaming, deleting per G7 or U1, and expecting people to have the degree of self-discipline to never return to this website again on pain of infamy. It was always a rather absurd idea. Risker (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

When you frame it that way, this is one of the reasons I use "RenamedUserNnnnnnn" rather than "VanishedUserNnnnn". (Calling out the vanishing always seemed counterintuitive besides.)

If courtesy vanishing is marked historical, we should still provide pointers to more private ways to request rename (bureaucrats / stewards ML, and I suppose the interface, though this is accessible by any global renamer). –xeno^talk 22:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WJBscribe, and good idea on the Bureaucrats/Message list. –xeno^talk 02:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional bureaucrat tasks

Just as a point of pure interest, I was intrigued by these words "...the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position." When I suggested something similar a while back, the Bureaucrats were so vociferously opposed to the idea of doing anything they had not originally been elected for, I abandoned the project I was working on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have recently made edits to this page that may satisfy your intrigue. Please note I am not entirely sold on the proposal as it stands, and have not finished editing the page and would need to solicit wider opinions from other bureaucrats and concerned parties. Feel free to provide comments here or privately. –xeno^talk 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. A bit 2011 déjà vue perhaps, but it would be nice if something on these lines could fly. I went a step further once and this was my abandoned project. I asked for selective feedback and inspite of very positive response from some quarters, I never offered it to the community for consensus--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What I tried to ensure in the draft was that the role of the bureaucrat didn't change much - still just gauging consensus. It's not entirely clear in your proposal - since the mechanics are not worked out - if bureaucrats would be taking on an investigative or disciplinary role (looking into possible administrative misconduct, handing out admonishments, etc.). I think that would represent a significant role change or expansion and I'm not sure the community would be comfortable giving such duties to a group that was not selected on their ability to investigate or respond to administrative misconduct. –xeno^talk 02:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My draft proposal was simply to take the task away from Arbcom and give it to the Bureaucrats in the same way that the committee would handle it but with far less paperwork. It still remains very difficult to apply sanctions to admins who just stay under the radar with their regular patterns of un-admin behaviour. It seems the only way to be desysoped is by flagrant misuse of the tools, socking, or serious COI. These are usually handled on individual cases only rather than taking patterns into consideration, and the community feels that Arbcom takes far too long over it. The community seems split in what it wants: there are those who say RfA criteria should be kept high, while there are those who say the bar should be lowered significantly with a fast-track desysoping system. They all want more efficient admin recall methods but it appears they want their cake and to eat it. It's very hard to know what solutions to come up with. When I make a suggestion too many peole think I'm absolutely sold on my proposals, which of course I'm not, but that's typical Wikipedia groupthink. Personally, I'm open to anything that works. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd worry that "BARC" would be too much of a shift in roles and controversialize the bureaucrat team.

Do you think the RfDA proposal linked above is sufficiently hardened against gaming and bad faith requests? –xeno^talk 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is going to be long - I'm essentially answering two questions. The proposed system is not entirely dissimilar to RFC/U which we got deprecated no so long ago in favour of referring cases more quickly to Arbcom from ANI. The difference is that checking for validity, and reading of concensus would be done by 'crats. I'm assuming however that the 'crats decision would be final and that they would be able to mash any buttons without waiting for a rubber stamp from Arbcom. I tend to regard the 'crats as a higher authority than Arbs, problem is we don't give the 'crats enough to do with their high eminence-for-life. To answer your question on a reverse-RfA process, I don't think it would be easy to prevent witch hunts and disingenuous voting. That's why I would like to see desysoping removed from the Arbs but kept away from the peanut gallery. If you were to take a look at what we braver admins do when we venture into those dangerous backstreets of ANI, you'll understand what I mean. Even Arbcom cases are not completely free of complicity and, subterfuge because everyone involved or not is allowed to have their say. There have been many perennial attempts to get consensus for a revere-RfA process but they never gained traction.Sounds perhaps silly, but we need a process based on traditional litigation: research, arrest, indictment, examination of evidence, cross examination by selected representatives, verdict by selected jury, handing out of sanctions. You can have a lot of spectators in a court room but they are not allowed to join in. The difference with BARC of course is that our respected 'crats would be both jury and judge. Yes, there would robably be controversy, but I think we have to admit there's a lot of dead wood in the 'crat team by now and there have been no new promotiins for a long time because there's nothing exciting enough about the job. A lot of people run for Arbcom though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd much rather that bureaucrats took control of the RFA process, and forced out people who serially denigrate candidate after candidate on the completely incorrect notion that it is "almost impossible" to get rid of bad admins; it's one of the more common ways for us to lose good, committed editors. I think this proposal is ridiculously easy to game; even if it does not succeed, the impact on any administrator brought before it is going to be horribly deleterious and will once again train administrators never to do anything that anyone can complain about. You're right Kudpung, it's essentially RFC/U except that someone can actually lose the bit directly - and we got rid of RFC/U because it was so easily abused. Remember, RFC/U also needed two certifiers and a "history". Risker (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically any desysopping process apart from the committee isn't workable? This requires more than just two certifiers; it requires a consensus that the request is certfied. –xeno^talk 16:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You're coming up with a solution to a non-existent problem. There are tons of people who whine about how hard it is to desysop people. When pressed, they are almost always unable to come up with an example of someone they believe *should* be desysopped for inappropriate use of tools or behaviour in the first place, and even if they can identify someone, there is almost never any history of trying to address issues with the admin directly - and I have yet to come across anyone who could identify admins who've been brought to Arbcom with evidence specific to them being "problem admins" who *didn't* get some sort of sanction (at least a harsh warning, if not a desysop). In other words, we have lots of complaining about this nebulous group of bad admins whom nobody is really able to identify doing things that nobody is really able to document failing to be sanctioned by procedures that were never used. I'm not saying there are no bad admins; I'm saying that the current process already works if people will get their act together and actually use it. I say this as someone who just took an admin/cu/os to Arbcom and successfully presented the case. Risker (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a solution to a widely-perceived problem that you believe doesn't exist. You may be right, but that doesn't change the perception (just count the people who opine in opposition to a candidate because "reasons" with the trailer rationale that "there is no community desysop process"). –xeno^talk 17:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking you and the other 'crats straight in the eye and telling you that that is a completely invalid reason for opposing a candidate; the perception of a systemic problem is never a valid measuring stick against which to support or oppose a specific candidate for a role. It would be like saying "well, some cats don't use litter boxes so I will stand in the way of anyone having a cat." Systemic issues should never, ever be used against individuals - in fact, the 'crats should be vociferously identifying that they will discount any "oppose" vote that is based on a systemic issue and not a specific individual. You have it within your power to do that, but fixing what is already within your gambit is hard, and instead here's a proposal to expand the gambit. Risker (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the oppose is never "oppose because we don't have a community desysop process" it's "oppose because I don't know enough about how the candidate will handle xyz and since there is no community desysop process, if they handle xyz poorly in a way unbecoming of an administrator, the only recourse is the Arbitration Committee" (along with the widely-held belief is that it takes rather a lot for someone to be desysopped by the committee). We can appropriately weigh comments that relate only to systemic issues, but that doesn't invalidate the stem of the oppose "oppose because I don't know enough about how the candidate will handle xyz" [and of course, the unspoken bit is "if we had a community desysop process, I'd be glad to give this chap the benefit of the doubt along with any other borderline candidacies that come our way, so long as we had an out that didn't involve the committee"]. The theory being that a community desysop process will leads to individuals being will be much more likely to support candidates at RfA. (I'll admit I don't know if the theory will hold, and it could be counterbalanced by less users stepping forward, not wanting to make themselves open to such a process.)

What's more is that the hesitation is not always explicitly spoken - so it's not even possible for weighting (or dropkicking users for expressing) the view to return the benefit of the doubt to the candidate. –xeno^talk 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've gobsmacked me. Are 'crats really accepting "oppose because I don't know enough about how the candidate will handle xyz and since there is no community desysop process, if they handle xyz poorly in a way unbecoming of an administrator, the only recourse is the Arbitration Committee" as a valid oppose? Let's parse this out. "I don't know enough about how the candidate will handle xyz" is roughly equivalent to either (a) I haven't bothered to research the candidate or (b) I expect the candidate to demonstrate competence at everything an administrator can possibly do without having the ability to actually do these things. The second part, "if they handle xyz poorly in a way unbecoming of an administrator, the only recourse is the Arbitration Committee"...yeah, so? Arbcom has demonstrated that the majority of the time when a valid concern is brought to it, that it will apply a reasonable sanction by warning (and the most that's ever given is one warning), desysop, or even on occasion desysop and site ban. This part all by itself, "in a way unbecoming of an administrator" - highly subjective, and usually means "wouldn't do things in exactly the way I would do them", regardless of whether or not variations are within policy. I'm actually increasingly offended at the idea that we should create a brand new process because people can't be bothered using the existing process. And given the woolly thinking that I'm increasingly seeing on the part of 'crats and the kinds of 'votes' they're accepting as valid opposes, I do not trust the 'crats as a group to handle this. You guys can't even agree to having the same activity standards for yourselves that the community has placed on administrators (3 years) or arbitrators (2 years unless re-elected). Risker (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you're misreading (or I've miswritten). Every day people oppose candidates because they don't have enough (AfD experience/experience handling content disputes/anti-vandalism work/interaction with other users/x/y/z) - they don't know how the candidate will handle xyz. There isn't enough evidence, the candidate hasn't participated in those areas enough. The hangup on the lack of a community desysop process is their own worldview. They refuse to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. They're opposing the candidate for valid reasons - reasons related to adminship. No, we cannot throw out the stem of those opposes. We cannot force people to give the benefit of the doubt. As I said, most of the time it is unspoken.

I do think bureaucrats can and should take a more active role in ongoing RfAs. I'm sure many only read in detail those that go to conclusion, but it is probably the ones that are getting withdrawn by a candidate midweek that need more attention.

And maybe before anything else, we should simply ask the question "Is there a requirement for a ~~community~~ desysopping process separate from the committee?" No point us going back and forth if the answer turns out to be no =) –xeno^talk 20:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

← As a side note, we have the exact same inactivity requirements as administrators, you'll have to explain what you mean on that bit. –xeno^talk 20:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well. In what way is Arbcom *not* a community process? The arbitrators are all elected by the community, the community can bring cases to it at any time (and in the case of the need for a desysop, they can act on an urgent basis even without community request), the community can participate in development of evidence, workshopping the proposed result, and providing feedback. I'd argue that there already *is* a community process. Arbitrators are elected specifically to do this - by the community - and each arbitrator has a term of no longer than two years before the community has a chance to reassess them. Bureaucrats have only ever been elected to assess RFAs and rename people, with maybe a little bot approval on the side (and most don't even do that), for a permanent term, whether or not they ever use their 'crat tools. I'd say Arbcom is a much more community-driven process...and I cannot understand why the bureaucrats aren't selling it that way. Into eternity, 'crats have steadfastly refused to accept any suggestion that they participate in assessment of consensus anywhere on Wikipedia outside of RFA. Now there aren't enough RFAs to justify having more than a handful of 'crats (a situation I largely believe is because the 'crats won't take ownership of the area), and this feels like a make-work project for a bunch of guys whose purpose has faded away. Now, Xeno...you and I have talked many times, and I know that you have always believed in devolution to the frontline community whenever possible. What I'm pointing out here is that Arbcom is far more community-centered than the process you are proposing, because it is led by people who have explicitly been elected to carry out this task, and who all have firmly established terms after which they have to seek the community's approval again.

As to the inactivity aspect, I suppose I was thinking of the absence of a way to lift the bureaucrat bit at a reasonable point if it has not been used. The five-year-without-actions proposal that is currently being considered is disturbingly inadequate, especially if all of a sudden 'crats are going to be doing this too. Risker (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what people would be looking for in a de-adminship process separate from the commttee would be one that is more lightweight. But you make fair points and appreciate you taking the time to elucidate your objections. I think you're right that the committee has lately been far more agile than in the past, perhaps people just have to realize and be willing to engage the process, as you say.

With that in mind, I'm still not sure how to convince people to restore the benefit of the doubt to the candidate the way it was so many moons ago. We can't just drop into the oppose section and start responding to !votes. We then become participants and the line between bureaucrat and participant is blurred.

Re: inactivity: no, bureaucrats are subject to the exact same guidelines as administrators: so while a bureaucrat who doesn't edit or log actions at all for 12 months will have their bureaucrat permissions removed (and is subject to the same 'lengthy inactivity' requiring RfB for restoration after 36 months), the status quo being that a bureaucrat who simply makes at least one edit a year (of any nature) will retain the bureaucrat permission indefinitely. –xeno^talk 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument that people are more likely to support candidates because they have an easy way to desysop them is enormously problematic. Even back in the day when there were always a few open RFAs, it was a week from hell for the candidates, and it is much worse now. I know at least half a dozen editors who would have been just fine as admins who were berated by opposes, dropped their RFAs early, and all but one has entirely left the project. Why would anyone deliberately put themselves through that if, at the other end of the tunnel, there's a "lightweight" method to yank the tools from their hands, with minimal evidence and even less opportunity to reply than they had in the original RFA? There is no indication at all that the same people will not behave the same way at RFA if there is a "community desysop" process where they can personally vote to remove the tools of any admin they think has failed to be perfect. At least now those who want someone desysopped have to make a genuine case that is persuasive to the group that has already been selected by the community to assess these cases.

We're not getting candidates because of the horrible way that candidates are treated at RFA, as though they are assumed to be untrustworthy and incompetent unless proved otherwise; this is in fact a change from the way RFA was even as recently as 3 years ago. I have been uniformly unable to get anyone to run for the past two years that I've actively tried (several of them have pointed to particular types of behaviour at RFA as a key reason, one of them being the almost absurd expectations of members of the "too hard to desysop" brigade), and to be perfectly honest I do not believe 90% of current, active administrators who regularly carry out administrator tasks would meet those expectations either. If that group then just moves over to this "community desysop" space and continues to behave in the same way....well, it will have a net negative effect because it won't attract new admin candidates and it will deplete the active admin corps. The fact that the bureaucrats have been completely unwilling to even ask these people to modify their behaviour, to point out that desysop procedures exist and are not difficult to use, tells me that the 'crats won't be doing anything to modify their behaviour in this desysop process either. Risker (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am convinced for the moment, Risker. I will try to work from another angle. I still think that the difficulty a bureaucrat faces in this task ("ask[ing]... people to modify their behaviour") is that we are getting the tag-in at the conclusion of the show. Once we start stepping into the middle of it, it is very difficult to draw the line between bureaucrat and participant. The community set up this gladiatorial process and it's not entirely clear they want us to jump into the ring while the battle is ongoing. We can weigh things afterwards but if we become an active participant, then we are really no longer acting as bureaucrats - we could be seen to lose our impartiality and become involved. We can make proclamations in general from on high or in the market - wag our fingers and suggest people assume good faith and be more trusting - but that might just be seen as pontificating. If someone is being a jerk at RfA, that's a user conduct concern - not really our wheelhouse, isn't it? A cop out, I'll admit - I will go back to the drawing board, but am open to suggestions. –xeno^talk 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. I know that the proposal is sincere, and it's entirely in keeping with a lot of the work you have been doing for a long time, I think even before you were a 'crat. (Wow, talk about long-term projects...) We'll have to do Tim's again one day when the rest of our lives are sorted better. :-) Risker (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Long-term indeed! And sounds great, I'd like that =) –xeno^talk 01:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Risker makes valid observations. The systemic bias against all things admin is present at almost every RfA or at least the RfAs of candidates who appear likely to be bold enough to risk sticking their necks out in the front-line areas. And that's what we need to avoid on a reverse-RfA process or any system that can be swayed by comments or votes from the peanut gallery, trolls, and block evaders. And that's why I remain convinced that the process should be handled by a select committee and why I still remain convinced that RfA should be clerked by admins and/or established users who are prepared recuse themselves from voting.

Nevertheless, RfA today is absolutely not the snake pit it was nearly 5 years ago when I started its largest ever research & reform project and Wales uttered those words "RfA is a horrible and broken process". I started that project for the very reason that I had been the subject of abuse of authority by two teenage admins on a tag-teaming rampage in one issue and a series of personal attacks by an adult admin on another (which in fact totally destroyed my participation for ever on a topic in which I am a qualified professional) and all those sysops have since been demoted for some reason or another. I wanted to know what makes our admins tick and how it was ever possible that some of them were elected. My own RfA was a classic example of the lies, venom, and disingenuous votes that were typical of the times, even from other admins. Fortunately, those kinds of voters don't stick around for long and most of them have moved on or bee blocked or banned. WP:RFA2011 didn't actively bring about any physical changes to RfA but it certainly got its message across and for those who can remember, RfA is no longer quite the ordeal it used to be. A lot of people posting in WT:RfA nowadays are relative newcomers who lack sufficient history of involvent in Wikipedia to be able to discuss things objectively and although it's the admin's talk page, most of them have no idea what it's actually like to be a sysop or to go through an RfA. Very recent RfAs for example, although there were some strong rationales in both camps, were surprisingly clean and objective.

I'm not sure that the lack of an effective desysopng process (and there is a lack) is consciously in the minds of the majority of most voters any more than it's in the minds of the candidates themselves. Many RfA candidates have surprisingly never followed the RfA system or even voted on one, and potential candidates who used the 'broken process' as an excuse for not running today haven't either - they've just let them selves be convinced by discussions they've come across elsewhere.

However, I'm also "…not sure that the community would be comfortable giving such duties to a group that was not selected on their ability to investigate or respond to administrative misconduct." and that's why I abandoned my BARC project. But consensus can change. If we can make 'cratship more interesting we may get a new generation of 'crats who would welcome actually having more to do with their authority. It's rare that a 'crat gets reprimanded but plenty of users have left the Arbitration Committee with their tails between their legs. Others leave it because they found they didn't want to commit to the enormous time it requires on the job. Our 'crats, who are generally very wise people, are by contrast hardly overworked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pontificating. (Special:Diff/671050943) –xeno^talk 02:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say in response, Kudpung. If what you said was true, we'd be rolling in good quality RFA candidates instead of having them walk away from the project, feeling badly abused. Amazingly enough, that didn't used to happen very often, and now it is almost the normal response. Risker (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Risker, the very opposite is true. The damage was done years ago when RfA had been allowed to become the very place most editors in authority fully tolerated as the one venue where all and sundry could be as spiteful, humiliating, and tell as many lies as they liked, admins included, with absolute impunity - stuff that on any other page of Wikiedia would be met with a block. We don't get anywhere near that kind of behaviour now and if it happens it gets dealt with. It's going to take time for potential candidates of the right calibre to realise that RfA has become a much less polluted environment, and it's the constant propagating of the myth that it's still a snake pit is what is keeping them away. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on what prospective candidates (and candidates who did not succeed) have told me, you are mistaken. The prospective candidates in particular identified by name certain current RFA regulars as the reason that they will not run. They know what's going on there, they read the recent RFAs (in particular the ones that were withdrawn or failed - that is, the ones the 'crats aren't really reading), and they say no thanks. Risker (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Risker, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Based on the feedback I have received from litrally dozens of potential candidates I have solicited, they just belive what they have been led to believe by the doom and gloom merchants. I could also make a list of regulars who are perhaps not too polite and those who are voting not against the individual but against the system, but the worst culprits were told by your very own Arbcom to stay away from the place or suffer the consequences. And they did. And others took note too and have stayed away. My sense of propriety forbids me mentioning names either here or by email. There are very few serious RfA these days that do not succeed. Most of those that don't were not serious, they ignored all the advice and basically do not enter the equation. I can think of only two over the last 2 years which perhaps should have passed that didn't; like I keep saying, for better or for worse, RfA does what it says on the tin, but there will always be rare exceptions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be as simple as encouraging long established users (especially other administrators) to participate more regularly in the process. Their participation in RfA may have declined due to the routine becoming mundane or the environment becoming more toxic. What's more, I would think administrator participants are generally more willing to "take a chance" on a candidate, giving the benefit of the doubt (because they are in a better position to moderate any new administrator's actions). –xeno^talk 03:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If we do that we'll have that anti-admin brigade coming out in force again claiming once more that Wikipedia is ruled by a Gestapo of sysops. For the moment, however, they are being rather more quiet than usual, while the actual overall participation at RfA has never been so high. 100+ support votes has become the norm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Note

I probably don't need to say this, because we've known each other for quite awhile, but clarification is a way of life on Wikipedia : )

But anyway, obviously my comments at the discussion (though admittedly I did make a few observations about those commenting) are intended to address the proposal and not the proposer.

Regardless, as always, I wish you well : ) - jc37 16:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Course, Jc37. I thanked you for your oppose because also I am not totally sold on it either! I appreciate your contribution to consensus building and your comments were well-reasoned and thought-provoking. Did you have any suggestions on alternate ways to approach the issue that you outlined? –xeno^talk 16:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, after reading through the page I was struck on how the discussions concerning closing and closers of (contentious?) RfAs reminded me of a few community-wide discussions I've assisted in closing.

I think what we're seeing in these recent growing pains is something similar to the concern awhile back where the solution was to wait 24 hours after a request to restore the tools to allow other editors (including bureaucrats) to comment. And I think people are having similar concerns about RfA as well. Which may be why we're seeing more crat chats of late.

I think the quickest, easiest fix would be to allow the discussion of who closes, in advance, similar to how the larger or more contentious RfCs are. Right now we really don't have that as an option, and I think this would avoid "set in stone" abitrary rules (like a certain number of closers, a certain amount of activity, etc) by just letting the bureaucrats volunteer in advance for each RfA. And that way also, if we start with 3 and end up with one (Like a pending changes close awhile back) then that's also still "allowed" as a pragmatic part of the process. thus embracing CON and IAR simultaneously.

For specific wording of the proposal, hmm.

I propose that, immediately upon transclusion of an RfA or RfB to WP:RFA, that one or more bureaucrats may immediately volunteer at WP:BN to close said discussion, similar to how we handle finding closers for community-wide and/or contentious RfC closures.

What do you think? - jc37 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My concern with such a process - and maybe I'm misunderstanding how it would work - but couldn't this give the impression of favouritism (e.g. "Don't worry friends, I'll handle MyWikiBuddy's RfA closing") or that a particular bureaucrat has prejudged an outcome and "called dibs on it", as it were? I think that having a range of bureaucrats who could potentially close any given RfA makes people more comfortable that there isn't some kind of backroom shenanigans going on. And to be honest, it isn't only that "someone could come out of the blue and close an RfA" that lead to the proposal. It's also the erroneous impression that there are 33 bureaucrats and we're staffed just fine. But the truth is, we could probably use some fresh eyes to help us take on the task of trying to improve RfA and make it less undesirable in order to produce more administrators to combat attrition. It's been over a year and a half since a bureaucrat was appointed. –xeno^talk 21:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that impression.

Let me use a past discussion as an example. So the community knows they have this rather large, contentious discussion. they post at WP:AN that they are looking for closers. then people start volunteering (to be brutally honest usually the sound of crickets is heard til people beg for closers). And even when someone volunteers, people comment. "Hey, here's a link showing you are not neutral", or whatever. Then, once the community is settled on the volunteers, the closers discuss, and close the discussion. And the community, partially due to having at least had the opportunity to review the closers of the contentious discussion, tend to be less explosive about the results. Essentially, let people have their say. No, this probably isn't necessary at most discussions, but for contentious ones, yes. And note, if this wasn't true, DRV and MRV (and an uncountable number of threads at WP:AN and its sub-boards) wouldn't exist. - jc37 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you linked to WP:RRA. Though Risker has moved me off the idea in the above thread, the activity check proposal was also partly in advance of a similar proposal I had drawn up here. I thought that the community wouldn't support such an initiative unless the role had some check-and-balance in place to ensure bureaucrats were 'tuned in', so to speak. –xeno^talk 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

After being in a lot of these discussions (see the links at the top of WT:RRA), I will agree that a lot of checks and balances need to be in place. and people pull in different directions. some want more of this and less of that. RRA is a set of compromises from top to bottom. I realise I wrote the final text, but it's drawn from a lot of other proposals and discussions. And I think it's about as close as we can get to having such a process.

But I dunno, my experience is that because everyone wants a little more or a little less of this or that, getting people to consensus on any new process is nigh near impossible anymore. I've tried several versions of WP:MOD (which is designed to address other issues), both a version for anyone and a version just for admins to step down to, and the combination of unwillingness to discuss to try to find consensus, or the - in my estimation - fear - both of admins and non-admins makes me despair people will ever come together to solve these issues in the wiki way. IWANTIT ILIKEIT IDONTWANTIT IDONTLIKEIT generally rule the day any more, and in my estimation gets worse every day. - jc37 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you do decide to move forward with an RRA that has bureaucrats involved in closing, please consider making a bureaucrat discussion a mandatory component. –xeno^talk 18:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to launch BARC probably in a mattr of days rather than weeks. I have comnpletely reworked it and I would very much welcome yourt thoughts at its talk page before I make a final draft. Of course, the RfC will sidetrack and weave and come up with all sorts of other uggestions rather than vote directly on the proposal, they always do, but at least it would start the ball rolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHUS

I have filed the BRFA to takeover the script here. THe script is alive and active on my toollabs account and only needs to have it's switch flipped on it's runpage.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower678. I trust you were able to figure out the bug? Basically we used to action requests and the bot would mark them done. It stopped working for some reason. –xeno^talk 02:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Some further debugging may be needed: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Urjustaghost_.E2.86.92_Anonpediann was not marked as done. –xeno^talk 12:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There you go.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! A thousand thank-yous. –xeno^talk 15:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Please, change my username to gemini1125 StefanGinchev (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	:) Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Belushi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Belushi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done

		The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
		Time and time again, the bureaucrats of en-wiki demonstrate their levelheadedness and expertise. Like an anesthesiologist in an operating room, you spend most of your time screwing around reading a magazine, but stand ready to spring into action when needed, only to fade into the background once your important work is done. Or perhaps that's more like Batman? Whatever your preferred metaphor, I am consistently impressed by the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for your service. HiDrNick! 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Would you mind taking a look at my username request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple? Thanks The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My RfA Crat Chat

Hello, Xeno,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Go forth, and do good unto the wiki :) That's all the thanks I need. –xeno^talk 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimJim name change

G'day!

This new nickname is ok for me: I'm retired, so this suffix: ~huwiki is doesn't disturb me at all. Thank you for my patience, I'm rarely logging in, to check my messages.

Regard, --SlimJim~huwiki (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding! –xeno^talk 03:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Username Usurp

Could you look at my Username Usurpation bc its been two days and the requests are building up and none of the people who actually do them are active. Thanks. Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting volunteer resources. You could contribute constructively if you cut out all the nonsense. –xeno^talk 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

“

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity^[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

^ Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or subscriber to the bureaucrats' mailing list or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks.

”

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xeno^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a little advice on that renaming

Hello my good man, I come to you not to bother and insist that you proceed with such rename request, because I know that would be out of question, rules are to be followed. However, I'd like a little advice, some help on how to proceed with that in which you told me to do.

First things first, you left the message at the Russian user-account and I'm supposed to wait, how long would you say I must wait? Because let's be honest here outside of the formalities of the page request there, that account is pretty much completely abandoned for good, the chap will not answer. Furthermore, how should I proceed after the time is met and the deadline for his response is up?

Thanks in advance,

NemesisFY (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

NemesisFY: Probably at least 2 weeks, at most a month. You can file now, at m:SRUC and they will just process it when the appropriate wait time has elapsed. –xeno^talk 23:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How to do it?

All the best, NemesisFY (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Just go here and follow the instructions from the top of the page. –xeno^talk 14:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Feel free to cleanse the talk page. I'll try and if in two weeks I have some complications, then I come back here.

Yours, NemesisFY (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks

I am surprised at you as a bureaucrat for whom I otherwise have the highest respect. If you were to follow current events and if you had fully read and understood the post it would have been perfectly obvious to you why I choose to have nothing to do with this individual, and you would have kept your criticism to yourself. It looks like the 'sour grapes' are yours for some reason or another. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recovery

You should recover the histories of user and user talk pages that were lost due to the original user or user talk page being moved twice to the new one, such as User:A Texas Historian. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently unpossible, see phab:T97532. –xeno^talk 01:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Xeno

Thanks for taking the time to grant my username usurpation request.

John Cummings (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 13:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

T113718

Are there any users you or some other user renamed where the "Automatically moved page while renaming the user" reason is not recorded due to T113718? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I glanced at my logs but didn't see anything. –xeno^talk 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Xeno, as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat, I was wondering if you could take a look at an incident involing an admin with a conflict of interest at WP:ANI? User:NeilN was accused of bullying an IP user and his response was to block the user making the complaint as a "sockpuppet" of the IP (without proof of course). Any attempts by myself or anyone else to make him see sense has resulted in us too being branded sock puppets (again, no evidence!) and also blocked (luckily, my IP isn't fixed, so I cannot be silenced by his continued disruptive adminship!). Anyway, he is basically not allowing a neutral admin the chance to take a look at his actions and take appropriate non-biased action. I was hoping that you, as a higher ranking bureaucrat could take a look and if needs be, remind this rougue admin of his responcibilities with the mop. Thank you for your time! 90.197.4.248 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Links [9], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shocking_bullying_of_an_IP_user_by_an_admin_and_some_of_his_non-admin_friends., [10], [11], [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't have time to review this in any detail, perhaps one of my page watchers can take a look. On a general note, bureaucrats aren't 'super-admins' and have no particular mandate to review administrators, you could post at WP:AN or contact WP:AC if you want to raise an administrative conduct concern. –xeno^talk 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there! I appreciate your having noticed my Alcoa copy edit. It sure was a whopper...taking me about 3 weeks overall, so I sure appreciate your thanks. Kind regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I just noticed special:Diff/682877544. That's quite an huge overhaul! Thank you for your efforts, FoCuSandLeArN - keep it up! Alcoa ranks high in my Wikipedia memory for the User:Mark at Alcoa breakthrough in username policy. –xeno^talk 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for that! Oh, I wasn't aware of that username case. I enjoyed reading about it...a little piece of Wikipedia history, if you will.

Alcoa announced a split yesterday, so I expect there'll be plenty of changes to the article as time goes by. Thanks again, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hearing about the split was what brought me back to the article, and I was glad to see it had been included. cheers, –xeno^talk 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Usurpations

Did global renamers forgot about that project? _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 09:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a legacy venue where only enwiki bureaucrats can work. I did some requests. –xeno^talk 18:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: It's the only place I could put such request. What should I do now? Should I use Special:GlobalRenameRequest now? _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to check conflicts. It's done now. –xeno^talk 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thank you. _{Please use {{reply to}}} Vivil 🗪 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Xeno:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Tis the season (well, almost)

I ~~double~~ triple dog dare you. :P --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What are we trying to ~~force~~ encourage him to do now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BN. Last section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm so scare =( Extra improcedure. –xeno^talk 13:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Editnotice

Please make the "watchlist this page" link in User talk:Xeno/Editnotice https. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks –xeno^talk 17:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello Xeno. Thank you for allowing me to change my username! I appreciate your work on my behalf. Ray Jameson (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat activity requirements

I just saw the notices going out to inactive bureaucrats. Thanks for your work on this. I always hope that these notices bring back editors who have been inactive but I don't think that has been true for the majority of admins desysoped for inactivity. One can hope though! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You can always see which administrators returned to activity by looking at special:Contributions/MadmanBot, which removes administrators from the log page when they make new qualifying edits (Removing administrators no longer inactive as of). In this case, the editors aren't necessarily inactive, just not doing bureaucrat actions anymore. If they were truly inactive, they'd just get picked up in the regular WP:INACTIVE sweep. –xeno^talk 23:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Multilingual usurpation

Hi Xeno. Thanks for your reply at [[Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#{DBD full name} → DBD]]. I shall indeed take it up with meta; however, I wonder if you might be able to help me out by explaining how to notify a user in a language I don't understand? DBD 22:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Usually I will first write the note in English and then use Google Translate [add "(translation by Google)"] and copy the resulting translation below it. In this case, you could probably get away with using {{subst:Usurpation requested}} on the target wiki. ~~Though the info may be somewhat outdated.~~ I updated the zh template to reflect the 30 days deadline in the global framework (zh:special:diff/38191604) and it should work fine.–xeno^talk 22:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mis-categorized user pages

Hi. Our discussion at Special:Permalink/693515714#User page inaccuracy made me wonder if other bureaucrats were similarly mis-categorized. Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats is surprisingly accurate; I guess the relatively small number of bureaucrats makes the category less difficult to keep tidy.

Undeterred, I looked at Category:Wikipedia administrators. The results are here: Special:Permalink/693523521. I may find the time and energy to fix a few of these user pages myself, but any help would be appreciated. Hope you're well. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Top work as always, I will try to help if I get a spare moment. Are you working from the top? I can work from the bottom. –xeno^talk 22:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP Albania

Hi Xeno,

can you please help with automatically tagging as {{WPSQ}} the Albania related pages? I saw that you have a bot for these tasks.

Thanks --Mondiad (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't operate the bot anymore. I think there are other bots that still perform such tasks. –xeno^talk 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Question out of curiosity

Hello Xeno

I've noticed WP:Admin says there are 1,332 Admins and WP:LA says 1,330. Shouldn't it be 1,331 as ERcheck was the last Admin to be reinstated. Who is the extra Admin? Just curiosity. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Graham87 usually has a good handle on these things. –xeno^talk 11:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: I didn't really, before getting this ping, but it appears that both pages use the magic words {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} and {{NUMBERINGROUP:sysop}}, which should both come to the same value. I ended up fixing the discrepancy by purging Wikipedia:List of administrators. Graham87 12:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hello, Xeno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes

Good to be back. Thanks for good wishes -- "May the force be with you".... — ERcheck (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 21:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you!

For the rename, I genuinely appreciate it. -- A ^talk/_contribs 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[1] Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or subscriber to the bureaucrats' mailing list or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks.

[1]