![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
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)
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)
|a=
and then |a=
) for more than one time. —
Revi 05:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
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!!! |
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. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
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)
Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 19:36, 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)
Just to let you know. I also made a mistake in it. Sunday, not Saturday. Risker ( talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Just a courtesy thank you for the move and for the spontaneous response. -- FAT RAT ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me my new username!
DawnDusk (
talk) 20:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
[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'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)
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)
...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)
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)
Oh, wait, your right. Sorry!
SwagMaster2030 (
talk) 01:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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].
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
Rent A Friend is a 2000 Dutch film directed by []]."
(syntax error in original) – xeno talk 12:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
{{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}}
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)
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)
![]() |
Thanks. That was fast! Doug Weller ( talk) 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Check WP:USURP-- Fgdt5r78698778 ( talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Please, change my username to gemini1125 StefanGinchev ( talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
:) Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
|
” |
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)
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)
How to do it?
All the best, NemesisFY ( talk) 00:14, 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)
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)
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)
Hi Xeno
Thanks for taking the time to grant my username usurpation request.
John Cummings ( talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Did global renamers forgot about that project? Please use
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 09:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)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)
I double triple dog dare you. :P --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Please make the "watchlist this page" link in User talk:Xeno/Editnotice https. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Good to be back. Thanks for good wishes -- "May the force be with you".... — ERcheck ( talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
For the rename, I genuinely appreciate it. -- A talk/ contribs 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
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)
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)
|a=
and then |a=
) for more than one time. —
Revi 05:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
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!!! |
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. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
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)
Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 19:36, 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)
Just to let you know. I also made a mistake in it. Sunday, not Saturday. Risker ( talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Just a courtesy thank you for the move and for the spontaneous response. -- FAT RAT ( talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me my new username!
DawnDusk (
talk) 20:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
[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'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)
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)
...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)
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)
Oh, wait, your right. Sorry!
SwagMaster2030 (
talk) 01:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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].
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
Rent A Friend is a 2000 Dutch film directed by []]."
(syntax error in original) – xeno talk 12:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
{{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}}
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)
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)
![]() |
Thanks. That was fast! Doug Weller ( talk) 16:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Check WP:USURP-- Fgdt5r78698778 ( talk) 16:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
← 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Please, change my username to gemini1125 StefanGinchev ( talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
:) Diego Grez-Cañete ( talk) 21:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
|
” |
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)
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)
How to do it?
All the best, NemesisFY ( talk) 00:14, 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)
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)
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)
Hi Xeno
Thanks for taking the time to grant my username usurpation request.
John Cummings ( talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Did global renamers forgot about that project? Please use
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 09:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 20:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
{{reply to}}
Vivil
🗪 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)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)
I double triple dog dare you. :P --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 20:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
Please make the "watchlist this page" link in User talk:Xeno/Editnotice https. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello Xeno: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America 1000 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Good to be back. Thanks for good wishes -- "May the force be with you".... — ERcheck ( talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
For the rename, I genuinely appreciate it. -- A talk/ contribs 18:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)