Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFC/RESYSOP)
REVIEWED AND CLOSED
After having analyzed every word of this RfC in detail I have formulated the closing statement below.
  • A bureaucrat may not resysop a former administrator if, the former admin in question resigned during an active RfC/U, or any other user conduct RfC, or an active request for arbitration, or if their administrative rights and privileges were removed as an act of the arbitration committee. A bureaucrat may also not resysop a former admin if they evidently resigned, or became inactive, to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.
  • A bureaucrat may resysop a former admin, if it is determined the editor in question resigned in good standing and/or in uncontroversial circumstances. They may also resysop a former admin, in every case, provided that the editor in question has passed WP:RFA or has reached consensus at any legitimate venue of discussion for applying for adminship.
  • It should be implied, not necessarily written into policy, that if the bureaucrat mistakenly adds or removes the sysop bit, it should simply be undone.
  • The community has chosen bureaucrats for their experience and judgement. The community feels that bureaucrat discretion and common sense should not be discouraged.
  • The following options have failed or hasn't meet consensus: 4-12, 14, 16, and 17.
—cyberpower ChatOffline 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the policy for determination of suitability for resysopping be changed? 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Background

edit

Bureaucrats are the users who have the technical ability to grant the administrator userright. If an administrator voluntarily resigns their administrative access or has it removed due to inactivity, they may apply to be resysopped if they have not been inactive for a three year period of time. When they apply for resysopping, a bureaucrat will determine if they are eligible to be resysopped. Specifically, the bureaucrat will determine if the user is actually a former administrator, if their account appears to not have been compromised since their desysopping, and if they have not been inactive for a three year period of time. The bureaucrat will wait at least 24 hours from the public initiation of the request for resysopping to ensure the decision is made with appropriate deliberation and the consideration of all relevant factors. While not stated in policy, a bureaucrat may decline resysopping if it is plainly evident the requesting user has committed egregious violations of policy of such a level that no person could reasonably consider them to be fit for administrative responsibilities (socking, severe copyright violations, etc.).

During the 24 hour evaluation period, a bureaucrat will determine if the user resigned "under a cloud" and is therefore ineligible to be resysopped. The present standard for evaluating if the user is ineligible is whether the former administrator "may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." The term "scrutiny" has generally been interpreted to preclude resysopping if the administrator resigned or became inactive during a user conduct request for comment or a pending or open request for arbitration.

There exists concern that the above standard may be the inappropriately vague or fail to reflect present community expectations of administrators. This RFC seeks to better define the concept, either through approval of a more clear term, the augmentation of the present term with additional clarifiers, or a replacement of the present process. Each section below expresses a possible alteration to the current policy and non-mutually exclusive sections may be combined with each other if the closing editor feels there is consensus for multiple alterations. Feel free to add more options if you don't think an appropriate choice is reflected in those presented.

A bureaucrat may resysop a former administrator . . .

edit

Option 1

edit

. . . unless the administrator's permissions were removed by the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion

edit

Option 2

edit

. . . unless the administrator resigned during a user conduct RFC or a request for arbitration.

Discussion

edit
  • This is one valid reason not to re-sysop, but it's not the only one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it needs a comma at the end, since, per Tryptofish, there are other good reasons for a bureaucrat not to re-grant administrator privileges, including some listed above and below. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, though as in all things, IAR may apply as appropriate. Not all RfC's are created equal... - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as long as it is made clear that the RfC or other discussion has been started, and the bureaucrat will determine if there is any consensus before denying/accepting the resysop proposal. gwickwiretalkedits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. A clear brightline is preferable here. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if the resignation was to avoid sanction. Someone who is a party to an RfC, but was never in danger of losing his or her bit, but resigns out of frustration, disappointment, etc. should not be considered as trying to avoid sanction in my opinion. Brightlines are good, but not when they are counter-intuitive. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not without bureaucrats (possibly informed by community discussion at WP:BN) having explicit power of discretion. It depends on the reason for resignation. It depends on the gravity of the RFC/U or arbitration request. What if the admin resigned due to a technically compromised account during an RFC/U that was bogus, staged by accounts that were blocked/banned before the admin regained control of his account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a valid reason to decline, though I don't know if that is part of the status quo. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Recent cases show that we need this. — ΛΧΣ21 03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but iff they were the focus of the discussion and not simply participating in them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Since it is impossible to determine what would have happened had they not resigned during the RfC/ArbCom case, we must err on the side of safety and not resysop users that do so. On the other hand, we should explicitly warn users that attempt to resign under such circumstances that they are resigning under a cloud and may not get their rights back simply be requesting it from the bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the condition "if in the RfC a desysop of the user was stated as a desired outcome, and was supported by two editors in good standing (and who remained in good standing subsequently)" makes it possible to determine what might have happened. Not every RfC on an admin seeks a desysop, and RfCs shouldn't be assumed to be at the level of desysop-requesting.

    For an RFAR, should the RFAR have been accepted? Or accepted by even a single Arb? Would an incomplete RFAR by a single user count? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. It doesn't matter whether resignation is a desired option at RFC, because the idea is that the user is trying to escape a rolling snowball of momentum towards that outcome. Shrigley (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as one good reason. Shrigley said it well. Nihonjoe's clarification, that the action should focus on the resigning admin, not just peripherally involve them, is also important. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This should depend on the nature and outcome of the RfC/U, which may have completely exonerated the editor in question. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what we need is a way to finish off those processes. Maybe by continuing and reaching a decision, despite the admin's resignation. May be by reopening them after the request to resysop, and then resysoping or not accordingly. We do not need a way to open a process, harass an admin, get him to resign out of frustration, and then not being able to get back; we do not need to further empower whomever shouts louder - Nabla (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of, the wording "...while the subject of an ongoing RFC/U or party to an ongoing Arbitration" would be better. If an editor goes inactive in these circumstances and later returns, then as part of the conclusion of the case the arbitration committee should be able to resolve (if appropriate) that user:example may reapply to a 'crat for resysopping without being considered under a cloud due to those proceedings. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes primarily per Deskana and Avi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3

edit

. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.

Discussion

edit
Note that my suggestion above is not for the bureaucrats starting a RfA. I do not think it would be sensible, as you explain. I suggest that if they think when the editor resigned it was about to happen a "scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping", then they re-start that scrutiny (ArbCom case, RfC/U, whatever). - Nabla (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4

edit

. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has the reasonable possibility of leading to desysopping.

Discussion

edit
These proposals got snowed out in no time.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Option 5

edit
DECLINED
Too broad for the community to want to support.—cyberpower ChatOffline 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid any kind of scrutiny or discussion of their conduct.

Discussion

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

Option 6

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . if the bureaucrat believes they would have successfully passed RFA at the time they went inactive or resigned.

Discussion

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

Option 7

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . if the bureaucrat believes they would successfully pass RFA at the time they are requesting resysopping.

Discussion

edit

In that case, why not just abolish RfA and have the bureaucrats give adminship rights whenever and however they see fit? :-) —Emufarmers(T/C) 07:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Option 8

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to serve as an administrator.

Discussion

edit

Agree with Sphilbrick and Firsfron above, this would be a change to the bureaucrats' traditional role, from determining consensus to replacing RfA. No. delldot ∇. 21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely obviously yes. Think about the corollary: A former admin requests resysopping. A bureaucrat thinks about it, but believes that the user is not competent to serve as an administrator. That is, he has a strong reason to believe the person is incompetent and would be destructive as an admin. Must he resysop? No. No wikipedian is ever obliged to do anything. There are "must nots", but never musts for volunteers. Certainly, no wikipedian is ever obliged to do something he believes will hurt wikipedia. Now, the crat cannot be empowered to rule that the individual can't be an admin - he can't prevent someone else flicking the switch - but he can certainly refrain from doing so himself.--Scott Mac 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. It should be read with the initial phrase "A bureaucrat may resysop a former administrator . . ." My apologies for failing to organize it in the most sensible manner. MBisanz talk 03:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doh, I'm horrible. Sorry all. Real comments: I think this is a good start, but I think this is only a last check, after checking the rest. If the former-admin checks out on all of the other ifs (no sanctions, yadda yadda), then this is the last one for a crat to agree to before resysopping. However, it shouldn't be a catch all, such as "I'm a crat and I think he's good so even though the community voted to desysop him I'll resysop him because he's 'competent'" or things like that (with AGF in mind). gwickwiretalkedits 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • HECK NO This pretty much removes the community from the process and makes we bureaucrats arbiters of the bit. Either the person has the trust of the community as evidenced by a successful RfA, no resignations to avoid overt community trust-removal, and not enough time away from the project to indicate that the community believes that enough has changed to warrant a new RfA (currently 3 years), or not. For as long as I have been associated with the project, my understanding has been that trust granted remains until removed. This would change everything, in my opinion, and not necessarily for the better/ -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option 9

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to be and will serve as an active administrator.

Discussion

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

Option 10

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . if the bureaucrat believes in his own judgment that the user should be an administrator.

Discussion

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

Option 11

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . unless the bureaucrat finds that subsequent to their desysopping, the user acted in such a manner as to lose the community's trust in their ability to serve as an administrator.

Discussion

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

Option 12

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . unless they resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions of any kind.

Discussion

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

Option 13

edit

. . . if the user's rights were removed as the result of a mistake.

Discussion

edit

Option 14

edit

. . . provided no serious concerns about their administrative conduct have previously been raised in an WP:RFC or WP:RFAR, and provided the administrator did not apparently resign or become inactive for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions.

Discussion

edit

I'm adding this suggestion because I think the other options only address previous misconduct from two directions, which don't catch the entire problem, namely: option 1—5, and 12, are all about evading scrutiny, while option 6—11 all call for a quite disproportionate whole new remit for 'crats, by requiring them to determine whether an editor is qualified to be an administrator. That would both give them an inappropriate amount of power (as Sphilbrick points out), and require them to do ridiculous amounts of work for each resysopping. I'm adding the "serious concerns" bit to our original "evading scrutiny" phrasing in order to catch also the cases where the admin has not evaded scrutiny, but there has in fact been scrutiny, and it has revealed, well, serious concerns. I also believe we should focus on conduct and previous criticisms, rather than on sanctions; we can't be bound by the reluctance of some older arbcoms to sanction abusive admins at all.

Why do I suggest attention be paid only to concerns revealed via RFC and RFAR? For practical reasons: I don't see it as reasonable to expect the crats to dig out every blessed ANI thread before they resysop people.

Crat discretion must of course be actively exercised to interpret the word "serious"—quite a large field in itself. Being RFC'd or RFAR'd certainly isn't enough in itself to make a resysop problematic: anybody can request comments or arbitration, and, well, frankly, many such requests are frivolous. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC). (P.S. I'm leaving Option 13 aside, as I don't understand it, and it doesn't seem to concern the kind of problems I'm addressing.)[reply]

Option 15

edit

In the section:

After removal due to inactivity

edit

If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances. The resysopping will be listed at the list of resysopped users.

change without further discussion to after 24 hours

Discussion

edit

This is true that if there is no discussion, after 24 hours, they can be resysoped but it is confusing, as it tends to indicate "immediately", which was the previous standard. No other changes are needed. Apteva (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the only time we should rely on bureaucrats' discretion on whether the account is compromised. No need for the 24 hours. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. 24 hours is an awfully short period, but there needs to be some basic chance to evaluate whether or not they really did leave "in good standing", and if they maintain basic operative competence and good judgment. There are quite a few problems with administrators who, after having returned from a long period of absence or who simply were sysopped a long time ago, are unfamiliar with new norms (such as the rapidly-developing debate about civility) that have developed and which have made adminship a more exclusive and reputable club. Shrigley (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Anyone that out of step with the current, live Wikipedia cannot possibly do a proper job as an admin, and may even find being a plain ol' editor again has a learning curve. They will need at least a 1-3 months of refamiliarization. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. And could be a couple days longer. If you're out for an year you surely do not need the bit in a hurry, nor does WP. - Nabla (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, per Nabla. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I think for each year of complete inactivity (of the admin account) the former admin should need to actively edit for one month so that they can familiarise themselves with current practices and any changes to policy etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 16

edit
  • Users that stop contributing for any extended length of time (a year) forfeit all their previous advanced permissions and if they want them back should return to the En Wikipedia user community to seek re-support for their advanced privileged access to sensitive data and general advanced trust - this position is a reflection of the development of the projects complexity and the growth in oversight of sensitive personally identifying information and deleted WP:BLP violations that any user with Administrative privileges is given full access to - Youreallycan 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of option 16

edit
  • No, but there's the germ of an idea in here. It's the same one in my !vote in Option 15. The problem with Option 16 here is that it was clearly written by someone who categorically distrusts admins, is pissed off about something, and trying to make a long-winded, rambling point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:SMcCandlish - I don't as you claim, "categorically distrust admins" and I can provide diffs to support my statement, I support admins, we have many great ones and I assist them if I can. Youreallycan 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not as written. Per SMcCandlish there is the potential for the idea behind this to become a good one, but this isn't it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, I appeciate your feedback - I will continue to record and investigate what users that have not contributed for three years do when they are automatically resyopped by the Crats and will present those facts as and when worthy, regards - Youreallycan 08:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea is good, especially given the policy changes which have happened over the last year. However I can't support as currently written. Plus 1+2 consensus tells me that the community doesn't think the same. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Option 17

edit
DECLINED
WP:SNOW – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

. . . unless the bureaucrat believes the user is incompetent to serve as an administrator.

Discussion (option 17)

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

Option 18

edit

. . . in all cases where there is a recent community consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or other venue used for the purposes of discussing candidates for adminship.

Discussion (option 18)

edit
  • This is proposed because some users above believe that other proposals would prevent 'crats sysopping following a successful RFA. While I don't personally believe that is the case, including this option would make things explicit. WP:RFA is often regarded as being broken, so the latter part explicitly allows for discussions at replacement/alternative/experimental venues. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

edit
  • This just might be the worst RFC in the history of Wikipedia. These options are not mutually exclusive, there are a multitude of shadings of the same general concept and no option whatsoever for my view based upon defective wording of the general question: Bureaucrats should not be able to restore detooled Administrators, Administrators wishing to be retooled must pass a new RFA. Wikipedia obviously needs some sort of elected RFC committee to guard us against this sort of straight-out-of-the-backside RFC... Carrite (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if it could have been organized better. I asked for help in the drafting stage and accepted the input of several people who commented on the talk page. I tried to be inclusive of your concerns in the prompt by inviting others to add options I had not thought of and indicating that non-mutually exclusive options with consensus could be combined by the closing editor to more fully reflect the nuanced nature of opinions on this topic. MBisanz talk 21:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not my intent to attack the initiator, only the form of this wretched 17-shades-of-blue-no-other-colors RFC. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion that needs to be had. Right now we have trusted crats that we are not allowing them any discretion in these resyoppings at all. I would like to get some feedback from them as to how they feel about that, do they feel a little bit of discretion is needed, would be beneficial in some situations? Youreallycan 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's unusual, but I agree with Youreallycan. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Carrite, both the bit in bold and the bit about the backside; the effect of this RfC would be to preclude the statement in bold. A bureaucrat would not be allowed to re-sysop after a successful RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different idea + The Rule of Threes

edit

This is more about process, and I think will answer a lot of the questions regarding what Bureaucrats can and can't do without micromanaging them. We have two scenarios, which we have to pick one. We also have the Rules of Three, and an optional addition to the rule of three. The Rule of Three would seldom be invoked, and only when it is a borderline case, which is rare but problematic with the current system. It isn't a straight "vote" to resysop, just guidance for when to pause, and how to overcome. This likely needs rewording to be an RFC, this is just the philosophy of the two positions. Some terms like "serious matter" are intentionally vague as consensus may change regarding what is serious and what isn't. We don't want a laundry list of "if Arb would have...." because we don't really know what Arb would do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario 1 (some discretion)

An admin is considered an admin ONLY when he has the admin bit. After one year of inactivity, the bit is taken away and he is a regular editor. Until 3 years of inactivity has passed, however, he has the option to apply for a "speedy resysop" if he clearly quit in good standing. Bureaucrats should approve for a speedy resysop unless there are reasons to believe the editor left to avoid scrutiny for any action or there is any situation that calls into question the editor's ability to meet community expectations, using the Bureaucrats' best judgement.

Scenario 2 (less discretion)

An admin is an admin even if he doesn't have his bit. An admin maintains his admin status until 3 years after inactivity. If he has had the admin bit taken away for inactivity, a Bureaucrat should automatically restore the bit back after the waiting period unless there is clear evidence that he left to avoid scrutiny over a serious matter, or he had committed a serious infraction that went unnoticed.

Rule of Three (Under either scenario, separate rule)

If during the initial waiting and discussion period, three Bureaucrats oppose the resysoping of an editor that was removed for inactivity, then this can only be overridden by three Bureaucrats voicing a support for resysoping. If successfully overcome, the bit will be restored after the waiting period AND all relevent discussion between Bureaucrats is complete. This may taken significantly more than 24 hours. If this opposition can not be overcome within 7 days, it should be considered a denial of speedy resysoping, without prejudice for future consideration. Other editors may contribute to the discussion but only Bureaucrat voices count towards the three.

Optional additional Rule of Three

Bureaucrats may delay or halt the resysop process at their discression, upon the request of three Bureaucrats, and resume upon the request of three Bureaucrats. All time limits are "frozen" during this delay

Discussion

edit
misc
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"After one year of activity, the bit is taken away". Mmm… you know, that's actually how it works on the Swedish Wikipedia. Works quite well, as far as I hear. But on this page, it was probably a typo, am I right? (Feel free to remove this busybody post if/when you've fixed the typo.) Bishonen | talk 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It is actually a solution to a filibuster, and addresses what to do when only one Crat wants to resysop in the face of overwhelming opposition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Instruction Creep

edit

Adminship is "no big deal", on the other hand Bureaucrats are chosen (and we are VERY choosy) for their really good judgement. The Community agreed to desysopping inactive admins based on the understanding that this was administrative and people just had to ask for it back. Given all of that we don't need anything more. Bureaucrats should use common sense, in the knowledge that they (like any other users) are never obligated to do anything they don't think wise. Seriously, we have a far smaller active community than we had a few years ago, yet everywhere I turn people are having discussions about new rules and processes that no-one thought necessary in the past - and mainly to deal either with hypotheticals or with very small occasional problems that we are well able to deal with when they occur. It seems to me this is a destructive culture of mistrust and institutionalism that is both the result and the cause of a project that is increasingly in danger of becoming moribund. We have bureaucrats - they have vast institutional experience - there are no major problems here - let them do what they've always done and use their heads. This RFC is unnecessary and unhelpful.--Scott Mac 20:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement:

  1. --Scott Mac 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - Though I disagree with "unhelpful" (community discussion as a helpful guide to help with future interpretive decisions/choices isn't necessarily a bad thing), I do agree in general that WP:CREEP is bad. - jc37 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is set up, in a leading way, to agree propositional statement (ie rules/guidelines) that is in itself unhelpful and it leads to an assumption that we need to agree such things. I'm not suggesting that it is designed to be unhelpful, but it is.--Scott Mac 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Instruction creep. There is intention to micromanage the judgement process of Bureaucrats. Resysop requests are infrequent, and very infrequently controversial, and we have the most stringently chosen for trust and judgement users making the decision.

    The agreed 24 hour wait is good. It allows forgotten information to be recalled, by any user. It allows a single crat to recommend a decline (has this ever happened). A recommended decline should lead to a crat chat (which is so obvious that it need not be written, surely?). If the crats have no consensus to act, then they shouldn't. RfA is always available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  4. WP:CREEP is bad. Discussion is not "unhelpful". The idea that "adminship is no big deal" is a very, very silly myth. If it were not a big deal, RFA would not need to exist, or would not be contentious if it did exist, there would not be endless debates about community trust and desysoping and resysoping, and really no one would would give a damn at all. This is clearly not the case. Given that admins have broad discretion to block other editors, for quite extended periods of time, and issue topic-bans on disruptive editors, and make or revert changes even to fully protected pages, and see, even restore, deleted content, etc., etc., adminship is obviously an actual big deal, by definition. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NE Ent 11:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FrankDev (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

edit

We have a long term consensus that if adminship is voluntarily given up not "under a cloud" (to be determined by bureaucrat discretion, which may include previous arbcom or community determinations), then the editor is free to re-request adminship at any time - though "pushing the button" to resysop will wait 24 hours to give bureaucrats (and the community) time to discern and make that determination.

The current exception is in the case of 3 or more continuous years of inactivity, then the editor will need to go through RfA.

In all of this, we rely on bureaucrat discretion. - jc37 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this statement:

  • This should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said / re-affirmed. - jc37 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this certainly seems to be true. As a sort of reply to the section above this one, as well as here, it seems to me that the editors who started this RfC stated in good faith, in the #Background section, where they felt the existing ambiguities are, although there's certainly a compelling reason to think that the crats can figure things out by consensus. Maybe this RfC will give the crats some useful reading, as a gauge of what the community currently thinks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for life? - no, never- you edit and contribute or you do not need and you should lose your advanced privileges. hi , wow , not see you for years my Internet faceless fantasy amigo - lol - welcome back, you want your advances rights back after three years of no contributions at all please ask the community for them back - , that is not my position - my position is much clearer - if you do not contribute on an ongoing basis your advanced permissions should be removed and if you want them back only the community WP:Consensus can and should be able to replace them - Adminship is no big deal - Youreallycan 02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, as to what the status quo is. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 05:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single edit

edit

"However I am ready to return to activity" .....

  • 400 days, over a year after his granted request for his advanced permissions back - not a single contribution

Restoration of administrative privileges

edit

Dear all,

I have been on a rather long wiki break, and have returned to my administrative privileges having been suspended. I totally understand the reasons given: that administrative access was removed simply due to inactivity. However I am ready to return to activity, and would appreciate my account status being restored.

Many thanks! ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Resysopping_practices&oldid=1187817987"