Hosta

It is 16:39:23 on April 10, 2017, according to the server's time and date.

Inactive admins for April 2017

Resysop request (karanacs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resysop request (Berean Hunter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crats recusing from Crat chat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing/Bureaucrat chat

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

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