Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

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

Please also remove my IA rights. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's been done for you TheresNoTime. If there are rights you want activated please let us know. SilkTork (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To head off more comments such as this, clouds are not determined until the editor asks for restoration of their perms. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't me this time, but the previous such comment was from me at Pratyeka's resignation. I understand the objection voiced in Special:Diff/1119410844, but this is not about determining whether there was a cloud, and it's not an attempt to start a discussion. At least it wasn't from my side. This is about the not-extremely-unreasonable fear that the lack of such a note could lead to it being overlooked later. I don't watch this noticeboard, so when I make such a comment, I do so because I likely won't be present to voice the concern when it's time to voice it. That's all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a difference between giving the current status of things (as you did previously) and saying "this is a cloud situation" (incidentally, as you also did previously). WTT below has given the current status of things, which will give enough information for any future restoration request. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, yes, that was non-ideal. I'll use more neutral wording when linking to current possibly relevant discussions in case I have similar concerns in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Although cloud is not determined now, noting for the record that this was the state of the case at the time of desysop. The committee had unanimously opposed removal of admin tools Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the archives, mostly-related functionary resignation here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom is reviewing a motion related to the timing of their votes and the resignation here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Proposed decision#Actions by parties to a proceeding. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Case closed, motion adopted - ArbCom waives their rule If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures for TNT in this case. This doesn't specifically waive any WP:ADMIN considerations - but may help any guide any possible reinstatement discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• In general I think most ‘crats would welcome a link to relevant contemporaneous discussions (e.g. active or very recent ArbCom cases) with a neutrally worded comment. Arguments about whether there is a cloud or not are less welcome at this point in time for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it may have the appearance of kicking someone while they’re down. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Last update was circa 2011: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Actions_by_parties_to_a_proceeding. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• To my recollection, when an admin's tools are removed it is customary to thank them for their service. It seems a glaring omission that TheresNoTime was not thanked for the years of faithful service they rendered, an omission I'd like now to correct. TNT, thank you for serving Wikipedia as an administrator, you have left an indelible positive mark and you will be sorely missed as both an admin and a functionary. I pray that you will remain as an editor. Sincerely. --John Cline (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  After reading my comment, I feel it conveyed the wrong tone. I apologize to anyone who may have gleened a similar sense and have copyedited the comment to better convey my intent. Best regards to all.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion on waiting periods

Note that this discussion was split from #Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

• I think bureaucrats should consider implementing the 1-day waiting period for resignation self-requests that Stewards implemented a while back so we can allow for cooler heads to prevail in situations like these. :( Legoktm (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I generally third this (prob implies policy change, etc.), but given that nearly every time there's a request with even a slim chance of weather we do this same dance for a dozen comments or so, I don't foresee a world where a waiting period helps that aspect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I considered that, but decided our current protocol serves the user and Wikipedia better. If someone is here requesting tools to be removed, they may be in an emotional/unhappy/angry/depressed state, and may, under provocation, do something they regret with the tools. I feel we should honour the request as soon as we see it. If there is no cloud, the user can gain the tools back on request. Granted, they have to wait 48 24 hours for the tools back, but better to have that wait than to regret having deleted something or blocked someone in anger. Some people may feel the burden of the responsibilities of the tools at sensitive times. I would personally regard acting promptly to remove tools on request was something more vital for mental health and security reasons than, say, closing an RfA on time. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Legoktm the major difference is if you go to SRP and resign, it is a one-way path; regaining access via SRP requires a new showing of community support. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  That waiting period was explicitly not wished for, and then also not taken. [1] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've ... shall we say "requested desysopping in less than perfect circumstances" (i.e. many would say "ragequit") a couple of times, and in my own case, not doing it right away would have increased my anger and stress. I asked TNT to wait a little, but once they make the decision and request a desysop, I think the respectful thing to do is honor their wishes right away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've always supported the 24 hour period to desysop for volunteer situations, it just isn't an issue that often. Require a request, then a 2nd request at least 24 hours later, this is how I would do it, with it automatically resulting in a voluntary desysop after 72 hours, say. This way if they don't come back, they aren't in limbo. This may seem like a burden, but it really isn't. It's not like you must use your bits during that period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I disagree there's an issue here to be solved. Whilst I'm not happy when someone wants to give up the tools - it's their right to do so. It's not a one way street - if someone did ask for their bit to be removed, if they did want it back then under our current rules they would get it back unless it was under a cloud. This way prevents potential disruption. I can see someone who was adamant they didn't want the tools anymore intentionally using them poorly to expedite the issue. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• ^This. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I had pondered for a while if this was a good idea. But I think Amory's point above should not be lost: a 24 hour waiting period could, not infrequently, turn into 24 hours of attention towards a person who probably doesn't want it at that moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I also do not support this idea. Cloudiness is a discussion for when they ask for the tools back. If it s a trulyt voluntary desysop, it should just be actioned with no further fuss or ...(sorry) bureaucratic red tape. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox I think the positive case for a 24 hour wait is as a cooldown for someone who is rage quitting not about CLOUD. Obviously CLOUD discussions are part of what I reference in my comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Immediate desysop on request and then a 24 hour wait for resysop both felt right for me last time I laid down my tools. Please keep as is. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• In my experience, people generally do not make these decisions lightly, and an additional wait time will not bring any particular relief, and may generate additional frustration. Also, I don’t think this is subject to discretion, so it would need to be implemented by RfC. –xeno^talk 20:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Acting on a request immediately isn't mandatory, so bureaucrats are free to use their discretion on whether or not they want to check in with the requestor first before complying with the request. I think leaving the process to bureaucrats' discretion may be the best way to adapt to each specific circumstance. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  isaacl: it’s true bureaucrats have a pocket veto in WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, however there would be no way for a single bureaucrat to prevent all others from acting on a request without a community-approved process for delaying. –xeno^talk 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  xeno I think the reverse is more likely - that most/all other crats would want to sit and a single crat does what is asked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I assume if one bureaucrat posts a response saying they're checking in with the requestor, the others will defer and not choose to short-circuit the discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  There are exceptions. IIRC I briefly rage-quit sometime around 2006; Raul654 (talk · contribs), bless him, sat on my admin resignation request for a little while until I'd calmed down. It wouldn't have been under a cloud or anything like that, but I reflect on that small act of kindness and understanding from time to time. I wouldn't want to see a bureaucrat's hands bound in either direction. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think any mandated waiting period is necessary. Leave us the discretion. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• I think 'crats having the discretion to implement immediately or not seems to be working just fine, and seems to be what both crats and those who have requested desysop in the past want, so I see no benefits to changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (Euryalus)

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

Hi all, last January I handed in the admin tools for Euryalus (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) to focus on studying. My last exam was today, and so am re-requesting the mop to return to various janitor tasks. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal request: Special:Permalink/1064590698. I see no issues, standard hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, seems fine. Welcome back Euryalus. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Respected user. No concerns. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello young Euryalus! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC).

Happy to endorse this user's return. Hope the exams went well. Glad to see your datestamp! BusterD (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And so enacted, Welcome back! Worm^TT(talk) 07:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (RedWordSmith)

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

I am requesting that admin rights are removed from my account, as regrettably I will not have an appropriate amount of time to dedicate to Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. - RedWordSmith (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's been done for you. SilkTork (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to RedWordSmith for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Transferring my admin rights

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.

---

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

Nandesuka2 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello Bureaucrats!

I am Nandesuka and I no longer have control over my old admin account due to being locked out of it by 2FA since March of this year. My 2FA device malfunctioned and I had lost my scratch codes long before that. Wikipedia's implementation of 2FA is extremely unfriendly for non technical users like me, with no "customer support" so to speak.

Anyway I was busy IRL from early 2020 till 3 months ago. I had tried to regain my old account a few months ago but it was not possible. I have been editing anonymously meanwhile. Since it looks like there is no hope of getting my old account, I decided to create this one. I was wondering if it is possible to get my admin rights assigned to this account since I have a committed identity?

I remember back in the day 'crats were okay with transferring adminship between accounts. I clearly remember Bishonen switching her admin hat over to Bishzilla. I looked in the archives here in BN and I see ELSchissel was in the same position as me, though they didn't want to get their account back. Will the 'crats please arrange to have my admin rights transferred to this account, since I am still eligible for resysop? Nandesuka2 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd think you would need to prove that you're the same person as the one who controls the original account, presumably by revealing the secret phrase for your SHA-512 committed identity to a 'crat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning: you can never "unshare" the SHA-512 plaintext, so doing so with WMF T&S would be the more advisable first step. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And don't just email it to them, email them explaining your situation and that you have a sha-512 published hash, they may assign someone specific to you. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Was extremely gracious of the little crat User:Rdsmith4 move admin bit from Bishonen to Bishzilla (clearly the better admin), but apparently caught some flak for it. Good luck, little Nandesuka2. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC).

 Not done you can start by contacting WMF Trust and Safety (email on that page) and seeing if they will help you with 2FA recovery. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Today's account CU-blocked. Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Level II desysop of Stephen

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

Please action the following.

Level II desysop of Stephen

The Arbitration Committee has determined, through the CheckUser tool, that Stephen (talk · contribs) has edited while logged out in a manner that harasses another user. The Committee has been unable to establish a satisfactory or alternative explanation after discussion with Stephen. Accordingly, the administrator privileges of Stephen are removed under the Committee's Level II removal procedures.

Supporting: WormThatTurned, Cabayi, Primefac, Donald Albury, Barkeep49, L235, CaptainEek, Izno, Beeblebrox

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level II desysop of Stephen

For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's been done. SilkTork (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours

Per the closing statement at the recent RfC, RfAs should be automatically placed "on hold" 168 hours after their starting time. The closer indicated consensus seemed to favour this being done in some automagic fashion. –xeno^talk 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• An open question is whether this also applies to RfBs. (I'd lean not.) –xeno^talk 00:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion didn't refer to RfBs so maybe this does not apply to RfBs, but maybe RfBs may be changed to sync with RfA procedures? Thingofme (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't really change any thing we do (since we don't close early). Suppose if anything it could cause drama of the "you participated late and I reverted you" type. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A way to implement this change is to use a edit filter after the time of voting it disable any edits to the RfA pages except for administrators and bureaucrats to close the RfA, and bots to fix technical errors afterwards. Thingofme (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about the edit filter idea (expensive to run on every page on the wiki, unable to isolate transclusion date). And doing it via template might have purging issues. Bot might be the way to go here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

However a title blacklist addition, like Commons' Pictures of the Year voting maybe useful. Maybe a script for voting on RfA: Support/Oppose/Neutral with reasons like stewards election? Thingofme (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Thingofme and Novem Linguae: Please bring technical implementation discussions of this to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFA max time holds - technical implementation. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
• Seems to be rather pointless to me, but okay. I never understood people complaining that an RFA wasn't closed immediately (down to the second). Some people have lives outside of Wikipedia, after all. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, but The People have spoken. I'm trying to make the change as unobtrusive (and as painless for us) as possible. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously I haven't seen it in action yet, but it doesn't feel like there would be much, if any, functional difference for closing RFAs. As long as the confusion of "Oh, it's on hold? I guess some other bureaucrat is currently examining it, so I won't" is avoided. And that would, I suppose, only happen if the would-be closer didn't know that a bot was automatically putting the RFAs on hold. Useight (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  See the linked thread above at WT:RFA, but my implementation idea adds a switch to {{rfah}} that changes "put on hold by a 'crat" to "automatically put on hold", so it should be fairly obvious which route has been taken. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

   Completed. If you are interested in the process, please add any comments (positive or negative) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Coding v1 complete. If there are no major concerns this update will likely go live this weekend (along with updated closing instructions to match). Primefac (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying the 5 year rule

A few of us noticed a discrepancy between WP:RESYSOP and WP:ADMIN. There is an RFC to hopefully fix this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators § Clarifying 5 year rule. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about admin inactivity

I've recently made a small return to Wikipedia after a long near-absence, in no small part due to the gentle 'encouragement' from the automated warnings about the new (to me) activity requirements for administrators. I'm glad to see these finally established, as it's always something I thought would be sensible. I've been helping out at CSD, which hasn't changed much and didn't take much brushing up on, but the thought occurred to me: it's very easy to do a lot of work at CSD and not actually rack up very many actual edits, since the signal-to-noise ratio there is actually pretty good. Of the two metrics at WP:INACTIVITY, the short-horizon mentions edits or administrative actions, while the five-year-horizon refers only to edits. Should I be concerned that my apparent activity is still quite low when measured only by editcount? Or are we still sufficiently not-a-bureaucracy that I shouldn't worry? Happy‑melon 15:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Happy-melon and welcome back! The community specifically asked for the edit criteria to be added which works out to <2 edits/month on average - so yes, if all you do is process uncontroversial deletions, you will not satisfy the criteria. I think a point of the RfC was that admins that performed only the prior minimum activity were less likely to operate in line with changing community standards; by requiring additional continuous interaction admins would be more versed in current practices. This doesn't mean you have to add content to articles, there is always a backlog of admin tasks and general tasks in need of help, most of which will generate edits along the way. I do not think the point of that RfC was to encourage "bureaucratic" responses like making exactly 50 edits one day a year and otherwise being absent. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Happy-melon, great to hear from you again, and glad you're going to become more active! As regards "sufficiently not-a-bureaucracy", that doesn't apply to admin activity due to a number of incidents with "legacy admins" during your time away - that is, some admins who had not kept up with community expectations and standards made some errors in judgement which caused the community concerns. Given your long term disconnect from Wikipedia I would suggest caution in using your admin tools for the time being. Better to contribute without the tools for a while until you manage to bring yourself comfortably up to date. I would suggest bringing yourself up to speed with admin requirements, and changes in policy since 2012, and keep an eye on discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI. My memory of you is of someone diligent and knowledgeable, so I assume you know this already; however, I'd rather bring it up unnecessarily, than have you walk accidently into an incident. SilkTork (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Although all of the above comments are true, if you maintain the level of activity you've had in 2022, that is high enough to not get desysopped for inactivity. (You have to make ~45 more edits before January 1, 2023 to avoid the 5-year rule and you've made 40 in just the last two weeks so that shouldn't be too hard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all, good to see the bureaucrats are as calm and thoughtful as ever :-) Happy‑melon 08:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Closing instructions - a question

So I just realised (and I'm not sure why I never noticed before... probably because I just clicked the link at WP:RfA), but our closing procedures for RfAs are right on the main WP:Bureaucrats page. I know there isn't much to say about us, but putting that level of detail seems a bit weird. I'm not saying it must be moved elsewhere, just wondering if there's any appetite for having the broad strokes at the primary page but the specifics moved onto a subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with it staying as it is or being moved. There are details, such as the template list, which are purely technical details for 'Crats, and of little interest to a non-Crat, which may make the page cleaner if moved or collapsed, though I suppose the question should be asked of non-Crats to see if some of that stuff gets in the way of giving someone a quick overview of what Crats do. SilkTork (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point, cross-posted a request for thoughts at WT:CRAT. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Since they're below the content that is of more interest to a general audience, personally I don't think it matters if the procedures are on the same page. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Go for it if you want, I don't really want to open any worm cans that will require making Wikipedia:Bureaucrats policy though.... — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In a previous discussion (Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 4#Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats), I started WP:Bureaucrat policy for discussion purposes. See also Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 5#Procedural policy or not?. –xeno^talk 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Status update

I decided that the instructions are short enough that it probably doesn't need to have its own subpage. To that end, I have rewritten Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures now that the auto-close functionality has been implemented (including a better example of what a page needs to be closed). Feel free to tweak or word-smith as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (TheresNoTime)

Resolved

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.

---

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

+admin

I wish to request the reinstatement of my sysop permissions (and ideally the IA I had at the time, but that can wait/be a separate request if needed).

For transparency, I resigned a couple of weeks ago during the closing day(s) of this ArbCom case (see also this motion in said case). Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Standard minimum 24-hold for comments apply. As linked above, arbcom has not imposed any prohibition from skipping RfA as a result of their case; however the policy requirement of If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation certainly still applies. At the time of resignation (2022-11-01T12:19:08) there was an open arbcom case that was in the voting stage. The votes at the time were in favor of admonishment for serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, but were unanimously opposed to desysoping. So now it needs to be determined if this policy criteria was active or not. I can see an argument that the prohibiting criteria was in effect, in that a case is by nature a "serious question"; however I can also see arguments that it was not in effect in that the desysop remedy vote was failing meant that this was no longer "at question". Comments welcome below. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  As far as my own !cratvote, I'm leading toward support restore; the purpose of the "cloud" rule is primarily so that an admin under scrutiny doesn't avoid additional scrutiny by resigning - as further investigation could be a huge time sink for everyone involved. In this specific case, neither the investigation nor possible removal remedies appear to be impacted by the resignation. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Xaosflux, above. I see nothing that would prevent the admin bit from being retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Not a crat, but I agree with everyone above that this can go through. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• This is not a typical "under a cloud" case where we don't know what the outcome would have been. ArbCom said "don't desysop". If TNT hadn't resigned, they'd still be an admin right now, and anyone who had a problem with that fact would have to start a second ArbCom case. The fact that TNT did resign is irrelevant. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I actually think you're eliding an important point. The WP:CLOUD metaphor is not one specific ArbCom thing but rather ...the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions (quoted from WP:RESYSOP). In terms of ArbCom's opinion in this particular case, it may be pretty clearly and cleanly decided (e.g. the WP:RESYSOP footnote citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels), but there are more to clouds than just ArbCom and there is more to scrutiny than just whether or not ArbCom still has desysop-ing on the table. Without opining on the case at hand, it's not irrelevant that someone resigns the tools. ArbCom removing the tools is a difficult step to clear, but there being murky/cloudy circumstances around someone is intentionally a lower standard. Bureaucrats saying "This could be dodgy, spend a week at RfA" is supposed to be an intermediate between "Clearly no issues" and "ArbCom took the tools away." One could think another has a cloud but support them at RfA, and bureaucrats have room outside of "is there an ArbCom PD that could pass?" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any non-case proceedings that were open in parallel at the time of the resignation (and generally the community abandons pursuing community sanctions once it has been escalated to arbcom) - but if there were and such a discussion was cut short because of the resignation, that could be its own issue. (Anyone wanting to present this please provide permalinks). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, wasn't meaning to imply there were any here, I don't think there were/are (beyond the PD talk, etc.). Just noting that there's more than just AC (or should be) for this sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding of resignation under a cloud is that it is not limited to resolutions in an ArbCom case; the phrasing used is serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation. If serious questions about whether TNT's violation of involved made their status as an administrator inappropriate existed in the broader community at the time of resignation, then an automatic reapproval may not be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• No concerns from me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Speaking with my arb hat on and not with my crat hat on and explicitly not voting as a crat because I believe it would be inappropriate to do so. I do not believe the committee would have desysopped, we had unanimously disagreed with doing so at the time of resignation, and there was a majority. What's more, the Arbcom requirement from over a decade ago that a person cannot be automatically resysopped after quitting during a case did not consider the scenario that we had already disagreed with with a desysop. Worm^TT(talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Worm here. This was a unique situation in that we had already explicitly voted not to remove the admin bit just before it was resigned. I'm pretty sure that "unprecedented" can be taken literally here and that therefore the cloud rule simply does not apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have any issues with restoring the toolset - with the usual delay of course. I am a bit worried about the context of what went on, and would stress to TNT to not go down the same road. I've not read all of the arbcom case that is associated with this, but it's very clear that there was no want to remove the tools, and at the time it was stated that the tools weren't "on the line" (so to speak). Disgression is the better part of Valor. There's no policy reason why the toolset can't be returned for a voluntary removal like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like my hand is involved when it comes to this, so I won't be touching the buttons, but I think Lee made precisely the point I was coming to make. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: just FYI, it's "discretion", as in being discrete; see wikt:discretion and indeed wikt:discretion is the better part of valour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC) </pedantry> If you're okay with more pedantry, I'll just fix your own misspellings... Primefac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the circumstances of the (self-)desysop and the feedback from the committee regarding it, I have to agree with my fellow ’crats that this request should be granted after the standard hold. Welcome back, TNT. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• My vote would be to restore the admin tools for reasons I will explain in a moment; however, I'm not sure we should be voting to restore before we discuss if this request is one that comes under "In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.". Also, just for clarity, it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".

  My own reading of the situation, and why I am in favour of restoring the tools, is that given that TNT had requested the case be held in public, and that at the time of the request the ArbCom desyop proposal was not passing, I can't see how the request could be motivated to avoid scrutiny or sanction. They had requested public scrutiny, and they were not going to be sanctioned by having the tools removed. I personally regard temporarily resigning the tools in a stressful situation to be a sensible and applaudable decision, and something that all admins should consider doing when faced with stress.

  However, as I say, I am reluctant to apply my vote until we have decided if this request should be classed as a "doubtful case". I think it is a "doubtful case", but at the same time I doubt if there would be sufficient objections from the community to a resysop to justify holding a "broader community discussion", and so having such a discussion could be seen as unnecessarily bureaucratic. So my inclination is that a broader discussion is not warranted; however, I would welcome more thoughts on this, and particularly input from the community as to if a broader discussion is something desired. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  It could be argued that what we are having now is a "broader community discussion" given that this is a discussion among members of thecommunity that is broader than just the crats. Obviously it's not as broad as one at somewhere like AN would be, let alone RFA, but if the rules intended to specifically mandate an RFA they would explicitly refer to RFA rather than a vague phrase like "broader community discussion". Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In your experience Thryduulf, is there so far greater community input into this request than normal? If so, I think I could agree with your argument. SilkTork (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  If we consider all resysop requests then yes this clearly has more interaction than normal. I think it would be more relevant to consider resysop requests as falling into two types - (1) those that are obviously not at all controversial and (2) others (including this request). The reason for the split being that very few people see any need or benefit to commenting on type 1 requests (in all cases discounting post-restoration "welcome back" type comments). Considering the set of type 2 requests I would say this is at the high end of the normal range. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a good idea to simply label this discussion, after the fact, as a broader community discussion. The members of the community that like to discuss these matters know that the bureaucrats have the responsibility of evaluating the circumstances of how administrative privileges are relinquished, and this influences participation in what is generally considered a bureaucrat discussion. A community discussion should be announced as such in suitable venues, inviting greater participation. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In response to the request for clarity (it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".), I certainly didn't do so to avoid further scrutiny. As I saw it, the result was a "done deal", and all "exposure, scrutiny or sanctions" had been levied. On a more cautious note, that situation put me over my own "red line" in regards to my health, at which point resignation was not only a matter of being upset, but peace of mind. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that TheresNoTime. That is exactly how I viewed it, and also why I felt at the time that your request should be immediately actioned. Given all the circumstances, including Thryduulf's observation that this discussion could well serve as the "broader community discussion", I can't see any reasonable impediment to the tools being restored. SilkTork (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork I'd say this discussion itself satisfies a "broader discussion", and would support any reasonable extensions in the minimum time requested. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how ArbCom could have been more explicit that this is fine, and I am happy to see TNT return to adminship. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• The case had reached its apex at the time that TNT had resigned, and it did not seem that the outcome would have been altered in any way as a result of her resigning or not resigning. WP:CLOUD states that cloudiness is determined when there seems a plausible chance their resignation was in part designed to evade or frustrate formal discussion of their conduct. The formal discussion had concluded. No further recriminations were pursued by the community, as they very well could have done so. Restoration of rights should be a done deal here. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There's clear consensus here. Restoring the mop. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a joke? An admin resigns for misusing the mop, and is given the mop back by a simple request? For the record, I would appreciate confirmation that TheresNoTime didn't also misuse the mop in my one and only interaction with her, at FormalDude's talk page, in which she threatened me with her very admin-ness. Posting on mobile, so can't provide diffs right now. But this is absolutely not an acceptable situation, by any stretch of the imagination. TheresNoTime should be required to go through the entire RfB process from scratch, with her recent conduct in full view for everyone to see. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime did not resign for misusing the mop, she resigned in part for misusing checkuser tools, which she has not gotten (and will not get) back here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the diffs I believe Homeostasis07 is referring to — Special:Diff/1077914768, Special:Diff/1077916517, Special:Diff/1077917307, Special:Diff/1077918276 (and the permalink talk section for ease of reading). I don't personally believe that I misuse[d] the mop in that interaction (nor do I believe I threatened [them] with [my] very admin-ness) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 02:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"despite an administrator telling you not to" and "I won't ask you again" coupled with a threat to take me to ANI for daring not to do exactly what you say is most definitely a threat. And thanks for confirming that you did indeed use the tools on me during that interaction. There was absolutely no reason for you to believe my account was in any way compromised, or that I was in any way colluding with any other user in that interaction. This user does not deserve reinstatement. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"thanks for confirming that you did indeed use the tools on me during that interaction" - what are you on about..? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"I don't personally believe I misuse[d] the mop in that interaction" = you used the tools but don't believe it was a misuse. It's clearly a longstanding pattern of tool abuse; you use the tools on any user you disagree with. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I think you may have misunderstood my statement — when I said "I don't personally believe that I "misuse[d] the mop" in that interaction", I meant that seeing as I clearly didn't take any administrative actions during that interaction, I couldn't have misused the tools... as they weren't used? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I want specific confirmation from someone else that TheresNoTime didn't access my personal details through the CheckUser tool on March 28 last. I have no interest in continuing the current pedantic nonsense with her above. If anything, her behavior here is confirmation she does not deserve reinstatement. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No one has used the CheckUser tool on your account. Izno (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I'm sorry if any of this came across as pedantic. As has now been confirmed to you, I've never used any "tools" on your account. I'd appreciate an apology, as most of what you've said is fairly baseless. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

+intadmin

• No objections, contingent on the +admin passing above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• No objections here, either, provided the admin bit is retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment in principle I have no objection to TNT regaining all tools, I argued as much before the case kicked off. But I do think we should establish categorically that the ArbCom would not have been minded to revoke any tools had the case continued. This is purely to not establish a precedent that you can "resign under a cloud" at a point in time when a vote appears to be in your favour and then later roll back in purely on that basis.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the circumstances of the resignation were completely unrelated to TNT's being an interface administrator, arbcom were not considering (nor was there any reason why they would consider) removing that permission, and there were (to my knowledge) no discussions about their actions as an interface admin at the time they resigned the tools, I can see no reason why this bit shouldn't be restored if they are reinstated as an administrator. Whether they should be reinstated as an administrator is something I have not yet formed an opinion on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• If admin bit is restored then the intadmin bit should also be restored. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In a proper bureaucracy, wouldn't that need an extra 24 hours wait, as only admins can apply for intadmin? —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  IntAdmin can be restored immediately upon request by any admin who previously held the permission, so... no. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I should have known we have a rule for this. Anyway, no objections. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Restored. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Resysop request (Eddie891)

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.

---

Eddie891 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi, I was de-sysop'ed upon request about a month ago. While I'm not interested in going into great detail about my personal life, I have been going through some mental issues regarding depression and pretty serious suicidal ideation. I requested de-adminship in the throes of that as a way of both cutting myself off from things I enjoyed and ensuring that I did not do something with the tools that I regretted.

I have been working to address those issues and think I'm in a much better (though still not perfect) place right now on the balance. I do feel ready to request the toolset again and hopefully become somewhat (re)involved with the community I have grown to appreciate so much. I don't think this would constitute a resignation under a cloud, and I don't think anything major has changed that would stand in the way of this request, but respect the communities judgment on both counts. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy to hear you are feeling a bit better. I don't see any issues - regular 24 hour hold for comments. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Admitenttly im a bit hesitant because they are in the middle of some personal issues and regaining his tools might worsen his condition,i would much rather prefer a level-headed admin but i am open to being subject to other opinions--85.99.22.160 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the decision here. In principle we know nothing about the private lives or situations of our editors, and they have no bearing on decisions made on-wiki. Eddie will be judged by their contributions here, and the fact that they've chosen to divulge the health issues they've been facing does not change that. Wishing you all the best and glad you're feeling somewhat better, @Eddie891:.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

In principle we know nothing until someone elects to tell us. There is nothing in the rules to inhibit the return of the tools, though it is appropriate to take greater care in some situations, such as when a user tells us they were concerned they may misuse the tools, and are "still not perfect". Personally, I would have liked a bit more discussion with Eddie to find out how secure they are (I did email them yesterday, though they have not responded). In situations like this, the return of the tools could aid someone's recovery, and I hope that is the case here. I echo Amakuru's sentiment, and wish Eddie all the best. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to go into greater depth over email, but just a note that I do feel capable of acting on-wiki in as level headed a manner as ever. And I would expect my actions to be held to the same standard as any other user, so my contributions will hopefully reflect this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Eddie and I have spoken over email, and I am confident they will continue to use the tools in a responsible manner. That they had the courage and good sense to hand them in when they were in crisis is a strong indicator that Eddie can be trusted. I will repeat what I have said previously, that I respect every admin who has the good sense to hand in the tools when they are under stress in any way. And we don't need to know the reasons. SilkTork (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Suspension of admin permissions (Alex.muller)

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

Hi there - unfortunately I don't have time to be involved in the project at the moment. Following WP:INACTIVITY please feel free to remove my admin permissions. Thanks! Alex Muller 09:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done that, thanks for all you've done as an admin. Hope we see you back again at some point in the future. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Alex Muller for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fun fact for Alex: It looks like the above request was your 11,111th edit. As much as I hope you have time for Wikipedia again in the future, kudos on stepping away in style. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#December 2022

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

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

   Last admin log: February 2017

2. Dbenbenn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: July 2011

3. DESiegel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: November 2021

4. Xdamr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: May 2015

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of admin permissions (Pathoschild)

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

Hi! Feel free to remove my admin permissions per the new inactivity rules. I'm still around for Synchbot, but I'm no longer active as an admin. —Pathoschild (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your long service, Pathoschild. Acalamari 02:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping us get where we are, Pathoschild. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Pathoschild for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privs - Nancy

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

Hi there - with regret I find that (not so) recent changes in my life mean that I no longer have the time to contribute to the project as an editor let alone as an admin. It has been some years (a pedant may point out that it has been a decade) since I was active on a daily basis; writing articles, deleting articles and all points in between. I find therefore that I must reluctantly request the suspension of my admin access per WP:INACTIVITY

It was great fun and tremendously fulfilling to have been a part of the project, especially in the early days, and I hope the door can remain open for a return at some point.

Many thanks and kindest regards, Nancy (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service, and resigning the bit with decorum. I've given you rollbacker rights, which you had previously, let me know if you want this removed also. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Nancy for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of admin permissions (GlassCobra)

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

Hi all, received the notification that my activity is not sufficient to keep admin permissions. Completely understand this policy and can unfortunately confirm that I no longer have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the project - we can go ahead and remove my tools. It has been a true pleasure to be involved with this effort over the years, and I will reach out should I find that I can return on a more consistent basis in the future. (EDIT: Would be great to keep rollback permissions if possible, I do still plan to fight vandalism when possible and this would be helpful.) GlassCobra 13:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with rollback enabled. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to GlassCobra for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice - large number of pending admin removals for next month

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.

---

Due to the new admin requirements, there are a very large number of admins listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023. This was expected, but can be quite striking to see. If anyone sees any thing wrong with the reporting, please bring it up sooner than later. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is rather striking to see a list that long, but it really drives home the point of the new rule: having that many admins who are not actively engaged with the community is not a good thing, as we've seen again and again. That's not to say anyone on that list is a problem, rather that none of them are a problem yet. The lowest numbers on there are two admins who have made seven edits in the last five years, and some that have not used admin tools in over a decade. One thing that did jump out at me is Xdamr, who is already listed in the above section for removal this month. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox thanks for the note, should fall off during the next bot run - will watch for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done This was resolved during the next bot update. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. For those of us who've been around a while it's an extraordinary list, and not just because of the length. 131? That more than decimates the admin corps... BusterD (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of doing this is that these folks already are not admins. What it does is make itr clearer how many admins there actually are. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I was bemoaning the number despite my qualification. My first admin coach is on the list and several editors who were important influences. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's always sad to see recognizable names getting desysopped due to inactivity, but it's worth keeping in perspective that this administrative "culling" was not merely "expected", but was actually carefully calculated by the architect of the proposal, Worm That Turned. IIRC, Worm made it clear that based on his statistical analysis, he believed that the list could and should be longer without it negatively affecting the project, but that he was choosing to put forward a very conservative proposal that had the highest chance of passing, rather than trying to get the activity requirements to where they should actually be. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Swarm, you give me too much credit. It is terribly sad to see so many names on the list, but I am glad to see it's about a 1/3 less than it was in March, where we could have lost nearly 200 admins. That implies that about 60 odd admins have come towards re-entering the community and that's fantastic news. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is sort of sad to see so many names on that list that I remember as very active at one time. Of course, I've had my low activity spells as well (just 17 edits in all of 2017), but I came back. Donald Albury 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In your lowest 5-year period (2013-2017), you made 837 edits. That's more than 8 times as many as would be required to not get desysopped under these rules, and I would argue that factor matters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sometimes gotten bummed out about/tired of WP, but I have never completely burned out. I will also note that I did support this new rule. Donald Albury 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing Pedro on that list bummed me out. He was one of my first friends here, back in the mid-00s. To paraphrase Dwight from The Office: "While today it is them, we all shall fall." Useight (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Useight. You're a genuinely fine person, and it's been my pleasure to meet you, albeit virtually. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Three on the list are still active around the movement, which is good (the developer folks I could identify, Tim, Aaron, and Hashar). I daresay they're being useful still. Izno (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the names on the list should be considered "not useful", and may well be significantly involved elsewhere in the movement, which is great. However, if they're not active in en.wp, they shouldn't be holding on to the admin toolset, inflating the stats and giving people a false sense of security. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we are looking at this as losing administrators, we are wrong. If you aren't making edits and not doing any administrative actions, you are an admin in name only. It might be sad to see users that were active/well respected over five years ago, but it's not like the editors cannot become good editors again if they wanted too. It does feel like we are looking at a series of users that inflating our overall number of sysops, but obviously there's a lot more to do than be an admin - so we don't need to be fretting about losing respected editors. Things will even out shortly after this mass exodus. I'd be happy to support or nominate an admin that lost the toolset due to inactivity if they wanted to run again. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed Cecropia on that list, who is also a Crat. There may be others too - it's a long list, and I skimmed it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

No, Cecropia is the only current crat on the list. Izno (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

For those not following along closely at home, the bureaucrat activity requirements were harmonized with the new requirement in an April 2022 BN discussion. –xeno^talk 02:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• I just ran into an admin I was unfamiliar with who I saw on the Deletion log and when I checked them out, their last admin action was in 2010. So, I guess some inactive admins are interested in coming back to active service. But a lot of things have changed in 12 years.

But I do have a question for you, Xaosflux, will this admin inactivity review be done annually or just this once? Or will the bot handle this 100 edits/5 year review on a "rolling basis"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a continuous activity log, so it will be done monthly just as the other inactivity checks have been done in the past. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

^that. A cycle can started 'anytime', but for practicality it is done once a month at the top of the month. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Good policy or not, that comes across as a really toxic uncivil comment, and I don't think it represents a widely held view. Most of these admins have done an enormous amount to get us to where we are today. I'd like to thank each and every one of them, whether they choose to continue or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As opposed to the various "sweep them out" comments (yeah, thanks for dismissing the hundreds of thousands of edits by previously committed editors like me @Roxy , really makes us happy for the unpaid effort...) I think I'll go for another plan, and log back in and start editing. Just for spite. The collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia has clearly long since gone. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I came here to just get a desysop, as I don't really care. But the posts above, particularly Roxy's, dismissing casually the hard work of hundreds of editors are a disgrace. So I am literally going to edit to p*ss of Rory and his ilk. What a shame. What a shame. Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pedro Welcome back. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 22:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we not, thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not know about the collegial atmosphere but I am sure everybody would appreciate if you do it. Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog has been blocked for one month for their comments on this page per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing#Roxy_the_dog_warned and behaviour history. SilkTork (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems like overkill to me. The warning Roxy had should have been enough. I see Bish has shortened it to 24 hours and I hope that sticks. SilkTork, I'm very disappointed. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not sad, and we as a community should stop treating inactivity desysops as if it were sad or something to be avoided or discouraged or kept to a minimum, because what is the alternative? If an inactivity desysop makes you sad, then what would make you happy? A lifetime of contributions? Is that what this community expects from its volunteers: once a sysop, you should continue to actively edit (and actively admin?) for the rest of your life? No, of course not! That would be silly. It's perfectly normal for someone to volunteer, even for years, and then to stop volunteering, and we should not treat this as if it's sad, or bad, or anything other than normal--and wonderful! Because the wonderful part is the part when they were volunteering, and we can't expect it to continue forever. Celebrate their contributions, don't lament that the contributions didn't last forever, because that's unrealistic. Sure, we might be sad because we miss particular volunteers who we worked with, but since we've had 1,000s of admin volunteers, we should expect to see hundreds of regular desysops as people naturally cycle through, and that's not sad, it's normal and wonderful. We shouldn't create the expectation that anything less than forever is sad. /rant Levivich (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Request removal of Admin permissions for StuffOfInterest

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.

---

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

After not being very active for a few years, well actually closer to a decade, it is past time to pull my Admin permissions. Please return me to the ranks of a regular user, where I started out 17 years ago. Thank you. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with thanks. Do feel free to let me know if you’d like any other permissions (rollback, etc.). –xeno^talk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having rollback since I still spot a boneheaded edit now and then. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Great, you're all set for rolling back :) –xeno^talk 00:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to StuffOfInterest for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. –xenotalk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for permission to run Synchbot

Unresolved

 – Policy discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should global deleters be permitted to delete local pages when fulfilling m:Synchbot requests?. –xeno^talk 15:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi! I run the crosswiki Synchbot service, which lets users manage their own user pages across all wikis. That sometimes means deleting user pages, usually to use their global user page or remove old subpages. Synchbot has built-in restrictions to make sure such deletions are uncontroversial. For example, it won't delete the main user page if the user has any block history on the wiki, and it won't delete the talk page if there's any edit from another user.

Previously such deletions on enwiki used my admin access, which I just resigned per the new inactivity rules. I can still delete pages using the 'global deleters' global group, but I'd like to confirm whether the bot would be allowed to delete pages on the English Wikipedia without admin privileges under local policy. If not, the bot can also place speedy delete templates using criteria U1 instead. —Pathoschild (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Pathoschild, crats can grant admin, but you need to follow WP:ADMINBOT in order to get approval for that to happen. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. First, Synchbot is what the English Wikipedia would call a script, not a bot, so isn't subject to standard bot rules. Second, Pathoschild isn't requesting a separate admin account, but the social authority to use his existing global deleter group to perform admin actions. And (despite normally being a stickler on Wikipedia:Global rights policy issues) I see no reason why that shouldn't happen. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in any of the documentation or their description above gave me that indication, and Legoktm's comment below makes it sound like it is a bot. Will wait for further comments. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Pppery and Legoktm are correct; I already have the technical ability to delete pages on every wiki, so I'm seeking clarification on whether I should use those technical rights on enwiki. Synchbot is a semi-automated script run through my main account, which I manually configure/start/monitor for each request on m:Synchbot. Historically it used my former steward access before global groups existed, since stewards at the time didn't want a separate bot account with steward access; now it runs under a web of local permissions, policies, filter rule exceptions, etc that would be difficult to migrate to a separate account. Feel free to ask if anything is still unclear! —Pathoschild (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Primefac, that seems unnecessary to me. Pathoschild has already been running this for years, and already has the technical rights to do so via a global group. That group is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Global rights policy so by policy it's undefined on whether it's okay. I would recommend by WP:NOTBURO that Pathoschild is allowed to keep running Synchbot since it's already been running for years without issue. Legoktm (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

+1 to all of the above. --Rschen7754 18:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that this is quite a rare activity here (15 deletion this year, only 29 all of last year). It does seem to be quite uncontroversial, but I don't think this is something that us bureaucrats can just say "OK, because we say so" to. How to move forward then: I suggest a proposal to amend the Wikipedia:Global rights policy is the best way to define this; I don't think it needs a giant RfC or anything, but propose, advertise, update (assuming there isn't community resistance). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  If it's uncontroversial and is existing practice why can the crats not properly invoke policy (IAR) to make a decision? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's not existing practice. Enwiki consensus has been consistently and firmly against allowing non-administrators to delete pages for many, many years. There's never been any prior hint of making an exception for former administrators who resigned immediately prior to being desysopped for inactivity, and certainly not for right granted on meta instead of locally. That I both trust Pathoschild and have used Synchbot myself are immaterial; 30-odd speedy deletion tags per year aren't worth opening up this back door. —Cryptic 19:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Cryptic fair point - existing practice is in the eye of the beholder here. I am suggesting existing practice could be defined as "this function is happening now" and you're seeing it as non-admin deleting pages (though in this case it would be an admin bot operated by a non-admin who has the technical ability to delete pages on enwiki). I am not suggesting crats change the rules. I am suggesting that, for the betterment of our project, they follow policy (no back door) and ignore them in this particular set of facts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  There is no "bot" involved here. This is just a script that is run by the editor doing the deletions. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  A bit of a point of order: has the consensus been against non-admins deleting pages or viewing deleted pages? I believe Pathoschild cannot view deleted pages nor is that necessary for what is being done here. --Rschen7754 19:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  The description of the right says The group lets members delete and undelete pages on all wikis, so that's a bit of a moot point since they can do both; unless there's something very special about this right, one cannot undelete without also being able to see those diffs. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Pathoschild's global group does, in fact, allow him to view deleted pages. But that doesn't matter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Barkeep49, you might want to see this discussion (and the slink in it), in which a brouhaha arose from a global rollbacker inadvertently using their rights on enWiki. I have zero interest in ignoring policies if it relates to administrative permissions. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  On the other hand, I was the main contributor to that brouhaha, and have no problems with this (and have been ignoring other users of that script when I run my periodic database query to find global rights policy violations). That section was really more about a misfeature in the script where it moved without leaving a redirect and then recreated the page to add a CSD tag (thinking there was still a redirect there) than the original issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  "This function is happening now" = "Pathoschild deleted one (1) page since resigning the bit not quite three days ago, probably without thinking it through first". Even if this was a proper bot instead of a user telling a script to "go delete this list of pages", we have well-defined and -accepted policy requiring the operator to be an administrator. Tagging the pages is just fine. As I understand it, this is already something Synchbot can do. —Cryptic 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: to be clear, do you think people will actually have an issue with this if it went through the "proper channels"? Or are you just raising a policy objection? I agree with you policy wise that this has never been allowed, but I also don't see the point of what feels like extra bureaucracy just because Pathoschild is now using delete granted via a global group instead of local adminship. Legoktm (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure people would. The proper channels, as I see them, would be one of:

  • Pathoschild meets the onerous 20-edits-per-year activity requirements to remain a local sysop. (People wouldn't have an issue with this one.)
  • Pathoschild runs a new RFA on the 2nd of every month, immediately after being desysopped on the 1st. (An obviously ridiculous option, though I guess it wouldn't be needed for long, since it's hard to pass RFA these days in under 20 edits.)
  • Amend policy, in the proper place to do so, so that deletion can be spun out of the administrator-only toolkit. But only for insiders appointed on meta instead of being locally scrutinized. After telling the plebes for years that they can't have those privileges without going through a full RFA.

  How can you not think people would have an issue with that? —Cryptic 19:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hm, I boldly updated the policy before reading this. I presumed most people would prefer Pathoschild continue the task using the already-held global right without having to make token edits locally or shunt to the speedy queue. No prejudice to a WP:VPP discussion if you disagree. –xeno^talk 20:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I am uncomfortable adding global deleter to the policy in this way. Ultimately Cryptic is correct that we're talking about 30 csd tags a year and so spending a lot of community time in advance doesn't seem like a good use of community time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Barkeep49: I don't think it's in the remit of bureaucrats to make this decision. Bureaucrats can't prevent anyone from using global deleter. Since Pathoschild is the only global deleter (in fact, it seems to have been created just for them), I would tend to agree with xaosflux that a simple update to the WP:GRP would be order. Since Pathoschild already had community approval to do this task, I actually don't even think a discussion is necessary since we would just be describing existing practice. Just create a new section of Wikipedia:Global rights policy (and if someone objects, let the burden of proof rest with them open a discussion). –xeno^talk 19:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   Done in Special:Diff/1125396581. –xeno^talk 20:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'll wait until the discussion here is done to make sure. But just to clarify in case we keep the policy edit: migrating to global user pages is the most common reason, but users can request crosswiki deletions for other reasons (e.g. to remove unused subpages or simplify a right to vanish request). So to cover what Synchbot does currently, the wording would be something like "Global deleters can use their rights to help users transition to global user pages or manage their own user pages crosswiki via the Synchbot service" (subject to the current restrictions like not deleting pages if they've ever been blocked). Would those be fine too? —Pathoschild (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we need repetition here. Just "The English Wikipedia community endorses the use of the Global deleter group to run Synchbot" should suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Right, I was just mirroring language from Meta-Wiki. –xeno^talk 21:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Can't say that I find the idea of adding an entirely new global user group to en policy after a 2 hour discussion in the depths of wikipedia noticeboards is the greatest thing ever. Terasail^[✉️] 21:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've tagged it as {{proposed}} since there's been a few objections. I also added "or otherwise manage their user pages" to reflect the additional functionality that can be requested. Since there's been objections, I think that additional discussion may be required, and this might not be the ideal venue (so-called "depths of Wikipedia!", I wonder what Annie would think...) –xeno^talk 21:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well considering how many non-admins appear here it definitely isn't the surface. Terasail^[✉️] 21:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Since Pathoschild already had community approval to do this task - no, xeno, Pathoschild was an admin, and thus their "community approval" was as an admin. They are no longer an admin, and thus they no longer have tacit community approval to delete pages. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  They can be an admin again after 24 hours if they want, though - at least until 2023 they're a non-admin by rights only. In any case, given objections, I've changed the policy addition to proposed. What's the best way forward here? WP:VPP? WP:BRFA? WP:RFC at WT:GRP? –xeno^talk 21:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed account/signature. –xeno^talk 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  I can own a new phone tomorrow if I buy one today. Does that mean I own a new phone? This isn't a good point, and isn't how anything works in practise. They either are or are not. WT:GRP is watched by 100 people so isn't a good place, VPP is really the starting point on this sort of discussion. Terasail^[✉️] 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point was they still have the social mandate. I guess it’s not a good point since it will lapse soon (without a burst of editing). –xeno^talk 22:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If it's a case of allowing a global-perm user to use their global permission to delete pages on-wiki, I believe it would be either a Village Pump or AN to get approval/consensus. If the question is asked properly, I do not see any issue with it being passed. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should global deleters be permitted to delete local pages when fulfilling m:Synchbot requests?. –xeno^talk 23:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There's clearly some level of debate on allowing deletions. I'm not sure we need a larger discussion in that case; I'll just change the bot to place speedy-delete tags on enwiki instead, and I can always re-enable deletions if we do reach a consensus on that later. —Pathoschild (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and your global efforts. –xeno^talk 22:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• I created the group per consensus on Meta (which was not restricted to "insiders" — how spooky!!) for Pathoschild, who previously had global deleting permissions as a steward, to continue to run and nice and helpful service for users. He's been using it uncontroversially across all projects ever since. Some global rights require the users to follow local policy (such as stewards), but intentionally no such restrictions were set up for this group as there is no level of control over content. Per global policy he should be fine to continue using it, even here, unless the community takes issue with that in which case it should probably be spelled into local policy.

And as an aside, discussions like this are part of the reason I no longer participate in wiki policy discussions. He's doing a helpful thing, he's following established policies (even if they aren't local). Why not let him continue? Strange world. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

+1. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remove bot flag (JarBot)

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.

---

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

User:JarBot is operated by a user who is now globally banned. The account itself is globally blocked, but the enwiki page hasn't been updated, nor has the enwiki bot flag been removed. Recommending deflagging to avoid any confusion; the bot shouldn't be able to run, but people looking for a bot operator might go there. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done as the operator can not control it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Duly added to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. Graham87 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Resysop request (Stephen)

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.

---

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

The Arbitration Committee have resolved in the final decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen that:

The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen § Restoration of administrative permissions. Please restore the administrator rights to Stephen (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Stephen's rights have been restored. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Resyop Request Fribbler

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.

---

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

Hello, I have returned after a difficult hiatus of a year and a half after my father's death and my diagnosis with epilepsy. I feel like I can now be active again.

Regards Fribbler (talk)

Fribbler (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Fribbler (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed in April this year due to inactivity. Last admin log was Jan 2021, however only 33 edits spanning the prior 60-month period. @Fribbler: do you realize this will immediately put you on track for inactivity removal under criteria 2? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Procedural query: Am I reading correctly in that former admins can re-request the tools that are removed for falling below the 100 edits in 5 years requirement? And do they have to first achieve the activity requirement, or do bureaucrats just need to be reasonably convinced that they will? –xeno^talk 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Starting January 2023, they won't be able to re-request the tools. Since it's still 2022, the new activity requirements technically haven't come on line yet, so this request is valid (provided that the answering crat is reasonably convinced Fribbler intends to return to activity). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno and @Pppery the RfC was unsurprisingly silent on this (creating timing of edge case headaches has become routine in these policy updates, leading to revisits such as this), so it seems that Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship is all that guides this. The policy was not modified to create a new disqualifying condition in the last RfC. Someone putting themselves in a continuous short-term loop of inactivity removal should raise the reasonably convinced argument. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Quiet, but surely it's implied, as the alternative would be a crat flipping the bit then immediately removing again? NOTBURO and all that. I suppose it could be argued that the individual may be gifted a grace period until the end of the calendar month, but that's mostly an artifact of bot convenience. I'd likewise imagine (IANAB) that in (nearly?) every such case that a request would implicitly fail the "reasonably convinced" test. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer actually it appears it would trigger the required warning cycle to start again. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point! Which for this item is noted specifically as Three months before the request for desysopping and again one month before the desysopping goes into effect. I actually think that's a pretty self-resolving conclusion, without needing any new policy or discussions: if crats aren't convinced, it doesn't need to be returned, but if they are and do, the individual has more than three months, after which either activity has returned or the bit is removed again and surely crats wouldn't be convinced a second time. I retract my above completely! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate on Xaosflux's comments, Fribbler's last 100 edits go back ten years. I'm sympathetic to people taking lengthy sabbaticals because of family issues, particularly over the past few years where Covid has disrupted families enormously. But, while it's possible for Fribbler to get 67 edits in the next three and a half weeks and avoid being immediately desysopped again, I'm not convinced they'll be able to do it in a manner that won't arouse suspicion - certainly, any straight return to administrative areas they haven't substantially touched in well over a decade is almost guaranteed to invite strong criticism. So I would advise Fribbler to forget about this and do some regular editing first instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

•  On hold  Bureaucrat note: I am not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, with only 1 edit in the last year, and ~33 edits in the last 5 years. Fribbler, I do welcome you back and look forward to you returning to editing first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Decline to resysop. Fribbler has had barely any engagement in Wikipedia for more than ten years, and has given no indication of returning to activity now. Fribbler, much has changed on Wikipedia since you were last active, and some low activity admins have made mistakes which have caused concern; as such the community would prefer long term low activity users to fully engage with the project for a decent length of time to show understanding of current policies and expectations, before requesting the tools back. In your case, with the new rules, this would likely put you in the position of having to go through a RfA in order to get the tools back. I welcome you back as a participant in the project; there is much to do here, and all help is welcome. There is much good you can do without the tools. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think policy requires a fresh RfA per se, though I do think bureaucrats can reasonably decline the request absent either a return to the community's present activity expectation (ideally) or a very convincing commitment to do so before a subsequent inactivity trigger. Accordingly, I recognize - and second - the holding of the request. In the interim, I would be willing to apply other permissions (such as rollback) to your account, Fribbler as you work towards the relative activity levels now required of administrators. –xeno^talk 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  My reading of the situation was that Xaosflux had put the request on hold to allow "sufficient discussion" among us Crats to see if there was consensus that Fribbler had returned to activity or intended to. And that if Fribbler was not granted the tools by the end of this month, then they would need to gain them back via RfA. Your comment, though, has alerted me to another possibility - that this request is being put on hold until the end of the month, to see if Fribbler will engage with the project sufficiently to encourage enough trust to grant them the tools. That is still possible. If Fribbler does sufficiently engage, I will support restoration of the tool kit, because that would be within the existing rules. Though, following the spirit of the RfC I would be looking for more than a few token edits - I would still be looking for full engagement with the project for a decent length of time given the lengthy disconnect. I'm easy with whatever we go with: discussion and close now (with the option to reopen before 2023) or hold until 2023. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork I'm missing a policy reason that would preclude Fribbler from returning to editing, then requesting reinstatement here after January? The new 100edit/60month rule that starts in January certainly creates a new removal criteria in addition to the 0actions/1year one; however it did not create new criteria in the reinstatement prohibitions. My hold above is indeed to allow the sufficient discussion as to this specific request, in the event other crat's are "reasonably convinced" for immediate return. Should we not be, I expect to convert that to a "not done". — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Right, my original assumption was that missing the 5 year/100 edits requirement would trigger one-way removal (similar to the lengthy inactivity triggers) while on inspection this does not seem to be an outcome of the RfC. (See my procedural query above) –xeno^talk 14:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, I see. I have now digested the above discussions - I hadn't realised that there would be a recount of three months; my reading was that if someone did not meet the requirement they did not meet the requirement, and that any warnings had already been given, so needn't be given again. So, we can turn down this request, but at any time in the next 24 months Fribbler can request the tools back again, and if they convince us they are or will become active, they can become an admin again for at least three months, even if they don't edit again after the resysop. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork that's my reading. I think the 100/60 rule does provide some guidance of community expectations in this matter, and am using that to help determine how "convinced" I am. While certainly not a bright line rule, I think in general I'll lean on asking those wanting to be restored to reach a re-engagement level that won't immediately require starting a count-down clock on them upon restoration. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts here are that at present we should not return the sysop bit to an individual who is not currently meeting the "100 edits in 5 years" minimum. That said, our levels for remove and return are not the same, for good reason. I would expect removals for inactivity to be a normal process and as long as the individual no longer meets our "inactivity threshold" and does not meet our "lengthy inactivity" threshold then we should be able to resysop.

In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I basically concur. Fribbler asked for the tools back prior to the 2023 cutoff and so long as at least one 'crat feels the return is genuine and Fribbler will re-engage with Wikipedia as it exists now then the bit can be flipped. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a crat, but I don't think that's what Worm said. I also think it's a misreading of the RfC. In the RfC I think the community said "this is the level we expect" 100 over past 5 years and also said "it's reasonable to give admins some time to meet this level". Saying that because the second part is true (phase in) that that the first part (expectation of activity) isn't a community consensus feels out of line with the RfC results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WTT said "In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board." I agree with the consequent given the antecedant. I am not sure the antecedent is justified yet, though, but that is a different question. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A year-and-a-half hiatus? Not only do the last 100 edits go back 10 years, the last 200 edits go back 12 years to...huh, August 2009, just after they RfA'd. This person literally stopped editing once they passed RfA. This is a prime example of the type of situation that pisses off non-admins. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Their first edit coming back in, minutes before they came back here to ask for the tools: adding an inline external link to a twitter account with the edit summary, "I think an external link is appropriate in this case." Um. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I must say I'm not overly convinced that this editor has made much of an effort to being active before starting this thread - which to me is a bit of a red flag. We are talking about 100 edits over the previous 10 years. If the user could show that they are active, then going back to the 2009 RfA consensus would make sense, but without even that, I feel like we would be both promoting a user that is going to be straight into the possible desysop list, but also one that hasn't interacted with the community much (if at all) since that time. I'd feel more comfortable if they met the activity threshold first before being resysoped. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; regardless of which set of desysop rules we refer to (2022 or 2023 rules), restoration can be put on hold or declined if there is no willing bureaucrat to grant it. An average of 5 edits per year for the last 10 years does not make me confident that Fribbler has returned to the type of activity the community wants to see in an admin. As stated above, even if we were to grant, Fribbler would immediately trigger the lack-of-edits clause in January (assuming they maintain their current editing numbers).

In other words, I am firmly in the "decline" camp for now, but have no prejudice against Fribbler re-applying in a month or two to demonstrate that they are planning on meeting the new activity requirements (even if they are not 100% meeting them at the time of reapplication). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

---

•  Not done @Fribbler: per above, there are "return to activity" concerns that were not overcome, yet. So what now? Well, first as I said I above, Welcome back!. Next, you can of course immediately return to editing the encyclopedia, there are always areas open to contributions. Then, if you return to activity I suggest you review some of the changes related to administrators - Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators and the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS are good resources. Finally, you may re-request restoration here once you are active again. As a soft suggestion, this should be after at least 100 non-trivial edit contributions. Option 2, if you think we are just wrong about this you can ask for restoration from the community by opening a request at WP:RFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Requesting to Adminship (Tsnded1)

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.

---

I want to request to became Adminship to the wikipedia please. Thanks. Tsnded1 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This ain't the place to request adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. However, I would suggest not doin' it right now because you've only been here for 29 days, made only 53 edits, and a history of copyright problems, per your talk page. Sarrail (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Resignation of administrative privs (Joe Decker)

I've left a longer note on my talk page, but I'm in an extended period where I haven't been able to meaningfully contribute to the project, so I would like to voluntarily resign my admin status. I'll be happy to check in again when that changes, but please accept my sincere gratitude to everyone here for the amazing work Wikipedians continue to do. --joe decker^talk 19:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your service and I hope you'll be back soon enough! :) Acalamari 21:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to joe decker for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Resigning adminship (Wwwwolf)

Hello. The long and short story is, I've not been really a huge contributor to English Wikipedia in recent years, and I've mostly needed admin privileges for occasionally reading deleted revisions. I am hoping that I'll eventually muster enough energy to come contribute here, however, but for now, I think it's probably safer if the privileges are removed. — wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's  Done for you, wwwwolf. Thank you for your past efforts, and feel free to let me know if you'd like additional userrights assigned instead. –xeno^talk 15:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to wwwwolf for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. –xenotalk 15:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Admin rights

Can someone explain the rationale for stripping admin privaleges from someoen who doesn't make 100 edits in 5 years? I've made about 100 in the last 4 years, but I keep an eye on the project and at some point might become more active again. But the beauracracy and beauracratic attitude at Wikipedia isn't inspiring me to do more! SamuelWantman 01:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sam the rationale is this community RfC from March 2022: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particularly bureaucratic idea. The main motivations were (a) recurrent issues with old admins returning to do some cowboy style admin actions that were particularly ill received (and frequently resulted in desysops for cause) and (b) frequent arguments about barely active admins who made just one trivial edit per year for a decade or so but kept their admin bits or even had them restored (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_41#Resysop_request_(Yelyos) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_35#Resysop_request_(Cyp) for examples). Given how much more difficult it is to pass RfA these days compared to 15 years ago when people like me made it, this led to a perception of unfairness in the process, and so the 100 edits in 5 years rule was the outcome. Compared to other large Wikipedias, it is a fairly low threshold.

Of course, the better way to fix the perception of unfairness would be to make RfA work again, but that is generally agreed to be impossible. —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remove my admin rights (William Pietri)

Hi! I have not used my admin rights in half of forever. It's something I keep meaning to get back to, but that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon. So, as suggested by the RfC and the assorted menacing notices on my talk page, I'd like to give up my superpowers. Thanks! -- William Pietri (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your service. I've taken the bit away, and have given you extended confirmed. If there is anything specific that you want back as a part of the toolset, let me know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! One day, perhaps! -- William Pietri (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to William Pietri for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Voluntary desysop request (Bob the Wikipedian)

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

I am no longer an active editor, and I don't remember the last time I needed admin privileges. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It looks like you never actually flipped the bit here. If you or some other 'crat could action this, that would be great. Understandable though with everything else going on today! Graham87 06:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Boldly pinging Acalamari, since you were active below ... Graham87 06:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done give me a shout if you want rollback etc. ϢereSpielChequers 06:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had so many tabs open I forgot to click save on that one! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

(Graham, I'd gone to bed by the time you pinged me!) Acalamari 04:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Bob the Wikipedian for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#January 2023 (Criteria 1)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity, criteria 1. Thank you for your service.

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

   Last admin log: December 2021

2. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

3. Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

4. Renesis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2016

5. Wickethewok (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2011

6. TimVickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

7. Steve Smith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: September 2021

8. Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: November 2021

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• dang. Going to miss Longhair. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to see Laser brain in this list, someone who really flew the “admins who write great content” flag. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#January 2023 (Criteria 2)

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.

---

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity, criteria 2. Thank you for your service.

Work notes

Unofficial procedural notes

Steps to do these: Remove admin rights from account, note it with -sysop; procedural removal due to inactivity per [[Special:PermaLink/1130806766#Wikipedia%3AInactive_administrators%2F2023%23January_2023_(Criteria_2)]] Restore +ECU if they previously had it If special flags (e.g. IPBE, EFM, EFH) were self-granted determine what to do about them (this is not a 'crat action) Notify the user, use {{subst:Inactive admin 2|suspended=yes}} on their usertalk Update the userpage of the former admin to remove anything that puts them in active admin categories (userboxes, manual categories, etc). If the userpage was self-admin protected, reduce the protection so they can manage their own page again Update the checklist at Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2023#January_2023 Update this checklist

Done

Discuss Criteria 2 removal group

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of these to do, as expected. I put notes above if any other crats want to work on some, please just mark them off as you go; if not I'll get to them within the day. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You deserve a bonus, Xaosflux, for spending your New Year's Eve/Day on this task. The list is long and I'm sure removing permissions is not the most enjoyable task a bureaucrat has to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll set aside half of my admin pay as a bonus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Within the day? Closer to within the hour. Well done. Useight (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notes, these should all be  Done. If I missed anything, please fix it or ping me. Happy New Year! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well, there they are. Many unfamiliar names on this list and a few I recognize. To be honest, I'm more concerned about the recently reactivated admins, some of whom haven't done an admin action in years who have come back to active service. Their contributions are appreciated, of course, but many things have changed since they were they were active on a daily basis. But thanks to all admins and bureaucrats for their service in 2022. On to the new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's good news for some admins who returns to activity, and we have 97 admins removed, so this is the first time since 2006 that the number of admins are under 1000 and it may plummet to below 900 in this year. Thingofme (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Admins in Critera 1 and Criteria 2: Please note, some admins were in both groups; this may have resulted in you getting double notifications; apologies for any annoyance. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Saw this come up a moment ago, went to help out given the sheer amount but saw you'd already done it, Xaosflux! Good work, but sad work. Acalamari 05:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I recognize 5 of the names is all, most of which you all would remember if you have been here a long time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  About the same here. I also randomly picked a name I did not recognize and checked their logs. Their last admin action was six years ago, and they hadn't really been actively using the tools on a regular basis since 2008. This process seems to be having the intended effect of giving a more realistic idea of how many admins there really are as opposed to how many people have the toolset by default but do not actually use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I recognize a few more of the names than that ... among others, the list includes at least five former arbitrators, four of whom I served with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Same. Thanks @Newyorkbrad: for the note about former arbitrators ... I'd had only four listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2023, but it turns out I never actually noted Steve Smith as a former arb (despite meaning to add that yesterday). Also checking Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, Camembert and Fennec were early arbs (which I hadn't noticed because they were on ArbCom before checkuser/oversight rights were part of the package, and in Camembert's case before either of them even existed!) Graham87 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks to all of them for their service. While most have been sufficiently inactive in recent times that saying this is like whistling in the wind, I still think it deserves to be said. Martinp (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I spotted one, Alphachimp, and while I first thought they were deliberately gaming the system since first being warned about being desysopped over a decade ago, I think they just simply lost interest in Wikipedia around 2007. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel hurt by this desysopping. Gosh, I knew many of these people too. --HappyCamper 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  People are allowed to move on to new hobbies. No one should feel pressured to continue to contribute here beyond the point which they stop actually enjoying it. Maybe they've moved on to something they're having a ton of fun with, like replicating all the technical bakes in Great British Bakeoff. Good for them! Valereee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry that you feel hurt, and I do remember you from 15 years ago. Your work is still appreciated. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  The community never intended adminship to be a permanent status symbol, as you apparently see it, HappyCamper. Your own editing has been sparse these last few years so you have no need for tools. That's ok. You served as an admin and your life moved on from this website and no one blames you. We can find other editors with time on their hands to be admins. Please examine your motives in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  HappyCamper, not a crat, but just looking through your recent edit history, you meet the criteria for restoration of the flag (i.e. you've recently returned to activity; looking at your most recent edits it seems it just isn't one edit to maintain the flag; and you made an admin action within the last 5 years.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And that would be a great idea, seeing as how this editor has made fewer than 200 edits in the past 15 years. Clearly someone we would want to do some adminning. WTF, Tony? Well, it might not be a bad idea to make a few hundred edits before requesting the toolset and starting in on admin work again; there have been a lot of changes in the past fifteen years, and it could take a while to get yourself up to speed. Valereee (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The policy standard for restoration is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, which was added as a way to make sure people couldn't game the system and just request it back immediately after removal if they didn't intend to actually do anything. Someone with 38 edits in a month is more active than many admins we have already who are engaged with the community. When implementing the new policy standard, the community did not make it a permanent removal. If HappyCamper has returned to activity, intends to stay above the activity thresholds, and they were caught in the removal window because of bad timing, then restoration at their request is reasonable.

  If they don't intend to return to activity, that's a different discussion, but inactivity removals were not meant to be punitive and letting someone who looks like they were trying to return to activity know that they're entitled to ask for it back after they express that they've been hurt is a reasonable thing to do in my opinion. I'm not advocating for it one way or another, but I don't think we should hide what someone's rights (for a lack of better word) under the inactivity policy are from them when they complain about a removal. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't punitive to question whether someone has kept up to make sure they understand current policy. It isn't punitive to ask people to show they've started to work again. 200 edits in 15 years is not evidence of returning to activity. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ultimately that's a question for crats if the flag is requested back: when drafting the language it was made intentionally ambiguous to allow room for judgement calls. I suppose my point of view is that if someone has returned and is making a decent amount of edits within the last 30 days, and says they intend to continue to be active, that meets the policy standard. That being said, I do think it is reasonable to ask that they show they're not eligible for desysop on the 100/5 rule, which for HappyCamper would be 36 edits. If they keep up the level of activity they've had, that wouldn't be all that long. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni every single admin that was desysoped was given a personal talk message including: ...Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN..., with a link to the policy outlining the details. I don't think we are "hiding" anything here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I know. I was responding to the WTF Tony?, not criticizing you. It also goes to my point - we've already told people they can request restoration. If they don't seem to understand that, there's no reason not to explain it more clearly when they complain. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am honestly a little surprised by the vitriol and sarcasm being thrown at editors here. WT:RFA is a non-stop deluge of people worried we're losing admins, but BN has occasional bursts of editors ragging on returning admins who might want to re-start their editing. It's hard to get motivated to return when comments are met with sarcasm implying that we don't want them around any more. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone can restart their editing. No one needs admin tools to do that. If a former admin came in here after a period of resuming editing and said, "Hey, I just had to ask someone to take a look at a deleted page for me to see if there were any useful sources I could retrieve for a related article I've been working on...can I get my tools back?" I'd be cheering. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this is where I am confused; you are happy for a returning previously-inactive admin to return to editing and then later ask for the tools, but someone mentions that is a possibility and you imply that they're no longer welcome. Either way, HappyCamper has not yet made any indication that they will be seeking the tools, so we do not need to make judgements about their character. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, what I indicated is that I think it's nuts if someone both doesn't listen the first time they're told and isn't familiar with the policy even though it's been posted to their user talk four times in the past 8 months, we still want to make absolutely sure they know they can ask for their hat back any time. So we kindly explain it again when they complain. I am trying really hard not to sound snarky here, so please take this as a sincere question. Why are we so set on making sure someone knows something that, if they had kept up even slightly, if they'd bothered to read multiple messages going back months on their user talk, if they still understood this place well enough to be actually doing any of the stuff that toolset lets them do, they'd either already know or know how to find out? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't read any snark in that, and I don't necessarily have an answer; I suppose one would assume anyone asking for their bits back will have read everything. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  If other people's kindness bothers you, could you refrain from commenting? It doesn't come across as improving the atmosphere here —Kusma (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I approve of kindness, but maybe we could try to look at that particular act of kindness from the point of view of someone who is not an admin. What does it look like from the point of view of someone who has spent the last fifteen years making tens of thousands of edits and is not likely to become an admin? Valereee (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Envy will not help them become an admin. I will continue to support changes to make adminship easier to get. Until a major shift in that direction happens, it is better for Wikipedia to take some ex-admins back than to run out of admins. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can you try for a minute to put yourself into the shoes of someone who hasn't been an admin for fifteen years? Seriously, it's not envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think i fall into Valereee's category, i've been here since 2006 and am not an admin; much as i respect Valereee, and if she remembers i have told her so, i think that the kindness offered by Tony above is absolutely correct and neither unfair nor envy-generating. We have chosen to work as a community to build this incredible project; there is no reason not to behave as though each editor is an actual person to whom we would be kind in person, even though we will likely never meet them that way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @LindsayH, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid I can't agree that it's a good thing to actively encourage an editor with 200 edits over the past fifteen years to immediately start adminning again. And if they aren't going to immediately start doing adminny things, why do they need the toolset? Why not just, you know...encourage them to edit for a while? Get up to speed? Why can't we do that kindly? Valereee (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank Xaosflux for putting in the effort to make this happen in a timely manner. I'd also like to thank each and every one of those admins who's user-rights have been removed for their service to Wikipedia, and I would love to see them return to activity, making a difference to the project as they have done in the past. I'm sorry that HappyCamper feels hurt by the removal, but this simple activity requirement should hopefully help us move away from the "adminship for life" concept and towards "adminship while active" concept. It will allow us to see the levels of backlog that still exist, and give us confidence that the admins who are around are actively engaged with the community and how it has grown and developed.
  I do agree with TonyBallioni that upon returning to activity, HappyCamper should be reinstated, and with so many recent edits, they are definitely on the right path - let's be clear, they've made more edits over the past month than I have, and I'm a sitting Arb and a crat. @Valereee, I understand that you may have concerns about admins returning from inactivity - but that is a positive thing, these individuals have put in significant time to Wikipedia in the past, and can certainly adapt to the Wikipedia of the present. I have no doubt that every admin wants what's best for the project. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the root problem of Valereee's complaint is based in unfairness. If making 100 edits in 5 years was enough to pass RfA, we could just tell HappyCamper to file a fresh RfA. But it would get SNOW closed due to a lack of activity; why should somebody get the bit on a very low criteria just because they're been around longer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-activating the bit and passing RfA for the first time are totally different things, and having the same criteria for both is counterproductive. Why should an editor's previous experience as an admin count for nothing? What is unfair is that RfA is harder now than it was 15 years ago. Being mean to old-timers doesn't fix anything. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What Ritchie said. Most people here are looking at this from the point of view of an admin. We need to look at it from the point of view of an active non-admin who has made tens or hundreds of thousands of edits over the past fifteen years and has little chance of ever becoming an admin. And someone whose last 200 edits go back that same 15 years gets led by the hand back to the mop. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If what you are saying is different from "let's be mean to old-timers so the newbies we're being mean to at RfA won't be envious" it hasn't registered with me. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, first let's define newbie...would that be someone with, say, 13K edits, or not? Because the average "newbie" at RfA probably has 20K+, and this "old timer" has, um, 13K. Kusma, I don't think we should be mean to anyone. But I also don't think we should effectively be saying "Please, even though there's no actual evidence that you know what adminning even means any more, please please please take this mop back."

And I do not understand why it's "mean" of me to object to that. I think we need to be having this discussion, not pretending this issue doesn't exist or shouldn't be mentioned here. I feel like you're valuing the feelings of people who aren't actually contributing over those of people who are. I value these folks' past contributions. I think we should thank them for them. I'd like to see us handing out some sort of 'Admin Emeritus' designation. But we need to get our priorities straight: the vast numbers of active non-admins who do the actual heavy lifting around here are the people whose feelings we should be thinking about. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think most of them are not as driven by envy as you imply. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention envy, and I don't think it's envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Major difference. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you and some other vocal editors are disappointed with a sense of unfairness. I hesitate to extrapolate that feeling, though, to a consensus of the community at large. Although admittedly the sample size is very small, comments in the past for requests to reacquire administrative privileges have indicated that editors are willing to return privileges upon a resumption of editing activity. Regarding pointing editors to appropriate policy: if it were solely up to me, there's a lot of policy, procedures, and common practices that I would expect a potential admin to be able to find on their own. I realize, though, that my views are stricter than the community's as a whole. For better or worse (and to be honest, probably better), being patient in understanding that many editors heavily filter messages they receive is something the community supports. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from the practical issue that we need admins and RFA is not getting us enough new ones; A formerly active admin who returns to activity can be judged not on what they might do with the tools but on what they actually did with the tools. We are a volunteer community, if someone comes back after a long gap we should be welcoming whether their kids have flown the nest, they've had a divorce, their job has changed or they've moved back to part of the world where it is too cold and wet to be outside in the winter. The message should be "when you are back up to speed we'll return the tools" not "you are now as a newbie". ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. A former admin should be treated as someone who has already been vetted as trusted by the community. Now it's just a matter of showing they're once again experienced. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You and a few other "unfair!" people come across as so hostile and unwelcoming to returning ex-admins that I fully understand why they just leave again instead of earning this new experience in such a hostile place. If you don't mean to come across as hostile and unwelcoming, please try harder not to. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if I provided what I think would be better? Here's how the exchange could have gone:

• I feel hurt.
• Don't feel hurt, this is procedural. It's not a comment on your or on your past valuable contributions, it's purely because as someone who hasn't edited much in many years, you probably aren't as familiar as an admin needs to be with how things work here now.

I see you've started editing again in the past month. If you find you're really starting to get back into it to the point you've gotten yourself up to speed with everything that has changed over the past fifteen years since you were last really active, it's a simple matter of making a request. 'Crats just need to be convinced you have indeed become active again.

So that isn't hostile. It's not unwelcoming. But it's also not "Hey, doesn't matter that you haven't actually edited in fifteen yeas, all you have to do is ask!" Valereee (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is much better than what you said above, where you were hostile and unwelcoming to HappyCamper who had done nothing to deserve that. You do that quite regularly at this board, and you should stop doing it. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think what Chris Troutman said above was more blunt than Valereee. But with things like this, this and this, I can easily see where this opinion came from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting that none of those cases would have been desysopped under the new criteria - activity was not the problem in any of them. Worm^TT(talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Kusma, I believe someone needs to be pushing back against this idea that there is literally no level of inexperience that should give us pause in automatically restoring the toolset. I get it that I'm in the minority here, and I'm sorry to be pissing you off, we've worked together quite peaceably at DYK and I respect you and that your opinions differ from my own. But I am not going to stop saying it. I'm sorry also that you think it's the wrong place to say it, but I'm not sure there's a better place than to say it than where the problem happens. Which is here. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that's what the original message said. I feel that it could have better emphasized the community desire to have a returning former admin engage more with the project before requesting administrative privileges to be restored, but I realize not all comments will have perfect wording. (Just as I think many agree with aspects of some of your posts, but aren't happy with some of the wording.) isaacl (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, I suspect if you had started off by suggesting the language you gave above you wouldn't have multiple people negatively characterizing your participation in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion was for a rewording of Tony's original comment. But I've also revised my own. Valereee (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I live to serve. :) Valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a small comment: I suggest not telling others not to feel hurt in a situation such as this, as that often doesn't get received well. I think we are genuinely sorry for hurting anyone's feelings and understand why they feel that way, while at the same time, the community did not intend to pass judgement on anyone with the new procedure. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WTT, I am really trying not to turn myself into any more of a villain than I already am here, but don't you think it's a bit silly to compare last month's edits -- 12 vs. 25 -- when discussing your 25K, their 200 over fifteen years?

You know what? This is stupid. I'm sorry, clearly I am the only person concerned that someone with 200 edits over the past fifteen years would be encouraged to immediately request resysop. It's fine. Carry on. Valereee (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm late coming to this, but I do agree with you. Thirty-five edits last month after less than 300 edits since 2007 does not look like enough of a return to activity to assure me that HappyCamper is ready to get back the bit. Donald Albury 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There was an exhaustive RfC and people are being too nice to those unwilling to accept the results. Wikipedia works on the principle that problems are fixed after they occur—we don't take guesses regarding whether a former admin is sufficiently mature to resume admin activity. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• General musing since my initial comment seems to have sparked a lot of discussion: I was motivated to make it because of what I saw as a rude response to HappyCamper expressing the fact that the removal made them feel unvalued. I don't really appreciate kicking someone when they are down, even if the response is true, and so my typical response in real life as well as online is to try to redirect. Upon a quick review of their contributions, I saw that HappyCamper was beginning to return to activity, and like Worm That Turned I noticed that they had been more active than me in the month, and that they looked like they were maintaining activity even after removal. The standard for restoration of rights, which I'm going to go ahead and be a slight jerk and point out that I wrote as a way to make it harder for people to game the system, is that a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. To me, at first glance, a user returning to the level of activity that is higher than many respected admins on this projects who are less active now is pretty close to meeting that standard if not already at it. Given what I viewed as the rudeness expressed to them, and given the fact that the community has not yet set a standard higher than the intent to return to activity, I felt it reasonable to emphasize that this wasn't permanent to HappyCamper and that they could arguably ask for the bit back now (or very shortly.)
  On a more general theme: I agree with Primefac that the response here has been a bit disheartening. If our goal remains encouraging people to return to activity, this thread (not just the response to my initial post) has been disheartening. Who would ever want to return to a community where they're being told that they're entitled and that if they follow the policy as currently worded they're making others feel like they've been treated unfairly? I certainly wouldn't. That type of response also only serves to encourage the gaming that people say they're so opposed to: just make sure you don't fall below the threshold by making a bunch of random edits (not that hard to relist AfDs, block vandals, rollback poop edits, etc.) and disappear again for 6 months. That way you don't have to deal with people telling you how you shouldn't be asking for restoration when you ask for it.
  And last but not least, possible policy solutions for people who aren't satisfied with the current wording of the policy: you can change it so that the definition of returning to activity is the same as the definition for removal (100/60 months); you can remove the "intent to return" bit, which was written before the new removal criteria was added. Removing this would arguably do the same thing as defining activity strictly and might be easier to pass in an RfC; or you can move to make it so inactivity removals are permanent and people have to reapply at RfA, which is what other projects do and what I honestly think some people here want, but is unlikely to get community consensus. Regardless, proposing those at an RfC rather than the back and forth we've had here about whether or not we should be discouraging someone to seek reinstatement that they're theoretically entitled to is a better way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  If the Wikipedian in question had made just 40 more edits in the past five years, this issue would not have arisen. That they did make 35 edits in December shows that they have returned, but, if they make less than another 36 edits this month (a total of 40 for the month), they will again fall short of criteria 2 at the end of the month. If they do make at least 40 edits this month, then they would only need to make a couple of edits a month thereafter to avoid triggering criteria 2 again. Perhaps it would be better to wait to see how active they are this month before offering the bit back. Donald Albury 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the intent of the inactivity policies is absolutely not to discourage admins from being more active. The intent of this new rule is simply to give a more accurate picture of how many active admins there actually are, and to remove the security/drama risk of having long-term, barely-active users with advanced permissions. It is not a punishment or a judgement on anyone as an individual.

  However, by the same token it is a bit odd to me to see a few admins only manifesting complaints now, when they were notified of this eight months ago, again three months ago, and again about a month ago. These notifications were done out of respect and courtesy, exactly in order to give these admins time to consider their options and chose their own path. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Law of unintended consequences. We hope to prompt admins who are inactive back into activity with these measures and our frequent messages to them. But actually if they're inactive, it's not because they've forgotten about Wikipedia, it's that they're lacking in love for it at the present, and I think the inactivity protocols are rather unlovely and therefore extremely unlikely to have the desired effect. For most, I reckon the best possible outcome would be some to do some token editing to pass whatever bar we have set - and that isn't a great outcome.

Wikipedia's main problem is and was its culture. People are too quick to be unkind, snappy, and (this coming from a bureaucrat) bureaucratic. RfA bad behaviours are symptomatic of more general ones. Unreasonable expectations of admins - that they have to be super experienced, super wonderful, rather than 'does this person exhibit behaviour that suggests that if we gave them the mop they'd follow policy and be pleasant and accountable.

The vanishing admin corps is going to become a huge problem at some point. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is never there. Anyone who has spent any time in the service industry knows your regulars will tell you why they came back but the people who leave do so for a variety of reasons: most of which you will never know. What Dweller speaks to is endemic and it does affect the sort of community you have, and not just in the corps. I should know, I use Wikipedia all the time as a resource, and (as my very sparse edit history shows) when I see things that need to be fixed I still have enough boldness to do so. And sometimes I even read though the dumpster fires that exist in the backend: at least the writing is better here then the rants posted to (other?) social media. Perhaps it was all the 'foolish hammering' that was at the root of it, perhaps it was always there and it has just been a slippery slope where the people who play the game the best persevere, I don't really know. But I suspect I'm not the only one who looks, with some level of pathos at where this project has ended up, who reads and watches and waits and wonders and hopes... Crazynas ^t 10:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Bot flag?

I submitted a BRFA for User:WegweiserBot, which was approved for a trial run to maintain Module:Signpost indices. However, it isn't able to edit any of the pages, because they're AC-protected (I've made a request at WP:RFPERM). It also occurs to me that it needs a bot flag, which RFPERM doesn't cover, so I went to the bot policy, which says I should request a bureaucrat to add the flag... but doesn't say where to do that. So I propose that two things be done:

1. Someone gives WegweiserBot a bot flag.
2. WP:BOTFLAG is amended to clarify where you're supposed to request it.

Many happy returns, jp×g 05:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: generally, only approved bots get the 'bot' flag. You request it where you are, at BRFA. I added confirmed to your bot account for your trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks! jp×g 05:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat (MB)

The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. As a note, all 'crats have received user talk notification. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

AWB bot access (User:MDanielsBot)

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

Hi. I'm not sure this is the right place to request this, but Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser directed me here. Could a 'crat (or any admin, I think?) please add User:MDanielsBot under enabledbots to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MDanielsBot 9? I already have user-level AWB permissions on this account, and user- and bot-level permissions on the respective accounts on Commons. Best, — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, though for the record that advice (For bots, please consult the Bot Approvals Group or bureaucrats' noticeboard about adding AWB access) might need to be revised - there's nothing special about a 'crat that is necessary to add a bot to the AWB list. Not a discussion for here, of course, but I'll have a think about the best way to deal with this sort of situation. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions § AWB and bot access, should anyone be interested. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Admin status (Leithp)

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

Hi. Can I please have my admin status removed. I haven't been utilising them for some time and it doesn't seem justifiable to retain them.

Thanks. Leithp 18:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. Leithp 20:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Leithp for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Inactive bots

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

The bot policy asks for this to be handled, with some notifications, over at WP:BOTN, so moved there. Once done if a crat doesn't handle it there, the removal request can be placed here. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Request desysop (WhisperToMe)

Dear Bureaucrats,

I've lately become very busy in my work, and I've found that article creation and development in general interests me more than admin work. I therefore would like to resign adminship. I may need my user page's protection settings adjusted so I can adjust the page. I will let you know if there are particular tools I need.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, I've gone ahead and removed your admin privileges. Let me know if there's any part of the toolset that needs changing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to WhisperToMe for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Desysopping Bjelleklang

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

Hi guys, for various reasons I haven't been able to contribute much lately, so it doesn't really make sense to have the mop and bucket at the moment. Please desysop me, and hopefully our paths will cross again in the future. Bjelleklang - talk 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you very much for your service, Bjelleklang, and I do hope you return again in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 12:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Bjelleklang for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Resysop request Gimmetrow

 Done
Gimmetrow (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) was procedurally deadmined due to inactivity with the big group Jan 1. I have the activity level now and would like the tools back. Gimmetrow 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• 24 hour hold per procedure. Gimmetrow was last fully active in 2010: [2]. They have made 100 edits over the past few days. And one admin tool action done a few minutes before they were desysopped: blocking a vandal user for three hours: [3]. That user was indeffed four minutes later by Tamzin. The three hour block for an active vandal, coupled with no block notice on the talkpage, suggests that Gimmetrow would benefit from reviewing current standards such as WP:BLOCKLENGTH and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Given the length of time since the last full engagement with the project, and the uncertainty of the admin action, I would prefer to see Gimmetrow return to activity over a longer period, including becoming involved in discussions related to policy and maintenance, such as AfD, merge requests, etc. SilkTork (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  They were active under the alt account User:Gimmetoo from 2010 to 2013. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gimmetrow - it's great to see you back and around. As SilkTork mentions, we have a 24h holding procedure to assess if your account meets the WP:RESYSOP requirements. I see that you meet all the clearly defined requirements (admin action within a the last 5 years, sufficient edits etc), but there is still the requirement that [b]efore restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.

I'm a little concerned by your request, which focusses on the fact that you are above the threshold for being procedurally desysopped, and says nothing about returning to activity. Can I ask directly, are you intending to return to activity, in what areas, and do you need the admin tools to do so?

Between your statement and the fact that you've made 64 edits in the 84 months month between Oct 2015 and Oct 2022 (when the notifications went out) and then after being desysopped, you've made over 100, I'd like to hear more from you before I'm "reasonably convinced" you are intending to return to activity. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to see a bureaucrat being bureaucratic. What would "resonably convince" you? I have returned to activity and started a task that should involve several thousand edits (to articles). Although need for the admin tools is not mentioned at WP:RESYSOP, I also look at article histories which sometimes means looking at deleted edits. And I can't even edit my own user page at the moment. As an arb you should appreciate that activity is not always logged as on-wiki edits. Gimmetrow 13:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand this isn't the main issue here, but FWIW I've unprotected your user page, so you can edit it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are legitimate concerns being brought up about your activity level that don't specifically relate to the amount of logged actions and edits you have made. For instance, there's also the fact that Wikipedia's administrative standards have changed a lot since you were last active in 2010 - WP:ADMINR is a good page to review in this regard, as it highlights some of the policy and cultural changes that have taken place. Certainly, if you return to Wikipedia cognizant of these changes and state your willingness to adapt to them, that would go a long way - but remarks like I'm happy to see a bureaucrat being bureaucratic might convey the wrong message. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the bureaucrat being bureaucratic comment - I know I'm being a pain here (as are other 'crats) and I am sure @Gimmetrow can see why we are. I would love to see a long term admin returning to activity, but I do also have to respect the wishes of the wider community with regards to administrator activity.

Now, Gimmetrow is right, activity isn't always logged and my personal logged activity levels are pretty pathetic and have been since I joined arbcom. So I do appreciate where they are coming from. But I am also on record stating that "if I were setting the activity requirements, I would set them higher than my activity level" (I do intend to hand in all my bits when I step down from Arbcom) - so I look for "need for the tools" too, even if it's not visible in the logs.

Anyway, Gimmetrow, I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about your intended project. Worm^TT(talk) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bureaucrat being bureaucratic" was meant as a compliment. I'm sure anyone who has looked at my recent edits saw I sourced a bunch of birthdates. Something that should be basic encyclopedic content. Gimmetrow 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update @Gimmetrow. Given the edits that you've made and intent to focus on a mini-project, combined with your history, I'm satisfied that you intend to return to activity. I would ask that you make sure that the sources you add are not bare urls (to make life easier for other wikipedians).

For your information though Gimmetrow (and other interested editors), I fully expect that the community will be increasing expected activity levels of the administrators in the near future (personally I intend to suggest ~200 per year measured over a 5 year period at some time this summer).

I will allow for more discussion (apologies this is lasting more than 24h Gimmetrow), but absent strong policy based exception, I do intend to return the sysop bit this afternoon. Worm^TT(talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Endorse, I don't have any reason to think Gimmetrow is not intending to return to activity now; yes if I would have processed those 100 desyops a little quicker we'd be in RFA territory but it is what it is. I don't see questions on if that block was the best block very relevant policy wise. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I land here also. There is no reason not to return the tools. If the community wish us to withhold the tools from admins returning after a long period of activity then we need better policy based guidance. A user who has gained the community's trust retains that trust until they are desysopped for cause. Being desysopped for inactivity does not indicate a loss of trust, so if a trusted user says they will return to activity, and in addition has fulfilled the activity requirements, then we resysop. It would be helpful if users with particularly long absences would spend a little longer re-engaging with the project than simply meeting the minimum requirement so that we can be sure we are enacting not just the letter of the law but also the spirit, but absent a policy based reason indicating otherwise we have no reason not to resysop Gimmetrow on this request. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 per the above. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that he needs my approbation, but I second Worm's message. And I'd add that it might be better to demonstrate your intentions by rescinding this request and actually editing for a bit before requesting the tools back. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Dunno, I could be swayed by a persuasive argument, but on the balance of probabilities I can't argue with your logic. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a good start, but personally I'd want an admin to commit to doing a bit more. Reading deleted edits is fine, but if you aren't using that knowledge to do anything onwiki, it's not productive (and arguably one of many reasons why we should be strict on letting people have the tools indefinitely). You wouldn't need to do much to convince me, but a declaration of intent would go a long way for me over and above meeting conditions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel, based on the evidence before us, that as Crats we have to make an awkward decision between WP:GAME and WP:FAITH. Some users have expressed concerns about admins gaming the system by making the minimal amount of edits in order to retain their admin status, and yet as time goes by have lost their cutting edge for making the right decisions. As 'Crats we have to decide if Gimmetrow is gaming with their recent 100 edits and single admin action, or if we assume good faith - based on their previous productive work, and a statement of intent, that they are genuine about engaging once again with the project. I want experienced and productive admins to return, so I'd prefer not to make that choice - I'd prefer to see the evidence of Gimmetrow's positive re-engagement and then resysop. That way there is no doubt, there is no dubious decision, and there is no controversy.

@Gimmetrow. Your admin action was done just minutes before you were desysopped. If you had waited 43 minutes we would not be having this conversation as you'd have to go via RfA to get the tools back. As that was your first admin action in over eight years, and it came at a time when you were about to be desysopped, the optics are not good, so a resysop at this point, with so little evidence of your re-engagement with the project would be controversial. How do you feel, in the circumstances, about withdrawing this request, getting on with the editing you mention above ("a task that should involve several thousand edits"), and then coming back when there is clear and uncontroversial evidence that you have re-engaged? SilkTork (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And if I had made these edits a month ago, we wouldn't be having the discussion either. What do you think would be "evidence"? Admin should be "no big deal" and I don't think anyone could plausibly say there's any chance I'm going to abuse the tools. Gimmetrow 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not about "abusing" the tools, it's about "misusing" them. Your recent admin action is a case in point. From a discussion you took part in under your Gimmetoo account back in 2013, you said "There are behaviours that should result in indef blocks, such as ... vandalism-only accounts.", and yet you gave Milleniumchaser124 a 3 hour block. The edit you link to as an example has since been deleted by User:Tamzin, who did do the indef block, did leave an appropriate block message on the user's talkpage, and did go around undoing the damage the vandal had done. If Tamzin had not noticed and done the right thing, then that vandal would have been free after three hours to continue vandalising Wikipedia. Now, back in the day you would have indeffed, and done the clean up. But today, you're out of practise, and so you slip up. And that's why I feel it is important that you get back into action and get yourself fit before resuming admin duties. Admins who are a bit out of practise have made mistakes, which is why we have these new desysop procedures. SilkTork (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that you've mentioned this twice, but have not asked me why I did what I did. Is "If a user believes that an administrator has not used their administrative tools as per the established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they should first discuss their concerns and issues with the respective administrator" no longer policy? Gimmetrow 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gimmetrow: I'd like to ask, then. Because I was confused at the time and am genuinely curious. Why did you block that account for 3 hours? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I'd like to ask as well. (The account claimed to be an LTA case in the edit summary of its second edit, and each of its next 30 edits were vandalism and/or slurs that ended up revision deleted.) Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw some clear vandalism that needed to be stopped. The short block was to allow time to look at other edits. The suggestion that this user would have been free to vandalize in 3hrs is nonsense. I got several ecs trying to post to that user's talk page. Then the user was indeffed, and I haven't objected, have I? These are the key points. I could say more but it's probably not needed here. Gimmetrow 17:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That does make some sense to me. I've definitely made quick tempblocks off of a single edit and then extended to indef once I looked at someone's contribs. I do think that the particular edit you linked in the block summary should have been enough for an indef even on its own, given that it contained one of the worst slurs in (many dialects of) English, explicitly directed at another user. But I also get that we're all fallible, all capable of missing an edit summary or such (never mind something like the detail that accounts using diacritics to bypass edit filters are almost always LTAs), and if every admin requesting resysop were judged by their worst block, we wouldn't resysop any admins. The problem in this case is there's nothing to judge you by but that block. And that presents the kind of tough question that makes me glad I'm not a bureaucrat. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh also, for WP:DENY reasons I'm not going to unrevdel the edit, but I've gotten permission from its target to share its content, so that this doesn't have to be an admins-only discussion. Body added the line "Fucķing retards"; edit summary was "Undid revision 1130817509 by LilianaUwU (talk) fuck off furfàg". It's the latter in particular that makes me say this was indeffable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, am satisfied with Gimmetrow's "return to activity or intention to return to activity." We get requests relatively often from users that show up out of nowhere and request the bit back on their first or second edit. Sure, makes sense to me that those haven't demonstrated an intention to return to activity, let alone actually returned to activity. This request is from someone who has made fifty times that number of edits. Sure seems like a demonstration of intention to return to activity to me. I'll take Gimmetrow at his/her word. Yes, Gimmetrow barely beat the buzzer with an admin action, but barely beating the buzzer still counts as meeting the objective portion of the resysop criteria. That part is objective for a reason. Back to the subjective part, I'm satisfied that Gimmetrow intends to return to activity. Obviously, that doesn't mean long-term activity will necessarily happen and, if not, that's on him/her, but a hundred edits in a month, to me, is sufficient to signal an intention. No comment on Gimmetrow's ability or knowledge of policy. Seems out of scope, to me. Useight (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also satisfied with Gimmetrow's plans and support restoration of the sysop bit. With the explanation, the issue with the recent admin action isn't one that gives me significant doubts about Gimmetrow's knowledge of current practices. To be more specific, we should err on the side of trusting a formerly inactive admin's plans to return to activity. To me, it's a case of balancing two less-than-ideal options, and I find that being hostile or unduly skeptical of a reasonable plan to return to activity to the point of denying a resysop is a worse outcome than resysoping someone who might not actually be active.

I'm also going to soapbox ever so slightly, to point that out it would probably be cleaner over the long term to have either a uniformly "sticky" inactivity policy (RfA always required after removal for inactivity) or have periodic confirmations for all admins, if the goal is to have every administrator on some more uniform standard of activity (editing-wise and admin-actions-wise), particularly as that would relate to demonstrated knowledge of present community norms. Maxim (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it would be cleaner and more helpful to have proper guidance for what we are to do with long term inactive admins who have been desysopped and then apply to have the tools restored. We are placed on the knife edge of WP:GAME and WP:FAITH, and also have to decide to apply the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. If we were bots we would simply resysop Gimmetrow as they meet requirements; though as humans we are asked to be "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" without a ruler to measure either the activity or the intent other than the edits we see before us. Absent a RfC on the minimum activity requirements for a returning activity-desysopped admin, we are asked to make a judgement call. I'm not quite there with my judgement call yet. I guess, given the long period of minimal activity and the uncertainty of the admin action, that I would really like to see more, not just hear more. I think I'm just more evidence based than assertion based. Having said that, like Primefac, I "could be swayed by a persuasive argument". SilkTork (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In any case where the letter and the spirit of the law conflict, the latter prevails, per our fifth pillar: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

While the Five Pillars is an interesting and influential essay, it is just that, an essay rather than policy. In matters that involve Crats, I don't think they can rely on the Five Pillars, just as we would expect them to avoid using WP:IAR unless it was a case that policy simply had not anticipated, and only as a last resort. I'm not sure what the right answer is in this case, but it wouldn't matter, I haven't been selected to make the call, but it is a tough call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have returned the user right. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#February 2023

The following inactive administrator is being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

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

   Last admin log action: November 2021

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No, thank you!

I am unlikely to resume a level of activity appropriate to earn back sysop privileges any time soon. I am busy with a new career and I have cultivated other interests. I would like to take this opportunity to let the record show that I think this policy is asinine, as my account is not compromised and it is daft to expect someone to maintain a level of activity for the rest of his natural life without compensation and under continual threat of demotion. But it's pretty much par for the course with how the project and society at large have gone the last several years, so it makes sense that I would be punished for doing nothing wrong. I suspect that I will now be banned for speaking my mind. Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on any other parts of your post, no, you're not going to be blocked or banned for being critical of the admin inactivity policy and nothing you've said here warrants either of those. Acalamari 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Merovingian have a better day, I guess. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The best place to discuss the current policy, and to propose any changes to it is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Resysop request Jamesday

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

Per policy I request my flag back. Sine these seem more controversial than may have been intended, some more details:

1. Last logged action using the sysop flag was a revert during my last batch of RC patrolling in 2020. May have been an edit to a protected page as well, haven't reviewed them. The purpose of the logging requirement being to provide verification of capability use, any logged use anywhere seems to fit the bill.

2. Six years of ill health and more than a year when any active participation here was unwise is why the one year edit threshold was passed. That led to loss of job and early retirement, removing work restrictions on participation and increasing time potentially available.

3. Bureaucrats involved in this request only: a. no problem to extend the time. b. if more medical information would be useful please use my talk page to suggest a private to involved ones only communication method.

Regrettably I lost my expansion to my request to an edit conflict with yours. I'll retype it as the last logged use is well within five years. Jamesday (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• With the last logged admin action in July 2008 this appears to be well over the 5 year rule. As such @Jamesday: the venue to request admin access is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you think this is incorrect, would you please comment below as to how it is. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Possibly compromised account? Poorly formatted, unsigned posts are not normal for an admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC) striking this for now as there was a cleanup. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Regarding comments above, no recent protected page edits detected; in general use of routine "rollback" isn't considered an administrative action for this purpose - as it isn't something that is only available to administrators. I'm sorry you had health issues and I hope you've recovered - but the reason for absence isn't germane. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with xaosflux. I'm sorry for your health issues, and I hope you recover, but I think an RfA will be required in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Hi Jamesday. Looking back at your history, you were a significant person in the development of Wikipedia back in the day. Your 2003-2004 contributions are impressive, and you have edited every year since 2003, keeping contact with the community though participation in key discussions, as well as monitoring articles, and reverting inappropriate edits - [4]. You were made an admin in Jan 2004 with strong support: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jamesday. I feel it is sad that through a technicality we removed your admin tools, and sad that through a technicality we are unable to return them on request. RfA is a potential route back, though it is likely that the community would be looking for more substantial engagement with the project than your edits over the past few years. In the meantime, if there are any admin edits that you see need doing, give me a ping and I'll help out. SilkTork (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
•  Not done @Jamesday: per the above. It is good to hear that you are able to better engage with the project again, and you are welcome to ask for adminship at WP:RFA at any time. I've added the rollback flag to your account for quick rollback actions. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Check user requests at ACC

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.

---

Incoming requests at ACC requiring CU evaluation is extremely backlogged. Any and all help will be appreciated. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Spinningspark

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

I regret to say that, according to VRT 2023022210009368, Spinningspark is no longer among us. As I understand it, custom is that his advanced permissions should be removed (NB I mistakenly asked here for this to be done, but of course should have asked the local 'crats – the guidance is not super-clear). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done may he rest in peace. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I met him at a London meetup once. My condolences to his family. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Resysop Request (The Wordsmith)

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

I was procedurally desysopped with the big batch at the end of December. Since then I've returned to activity and taken some time to re-familiarize myself with community norms and changes. Now that I am more confident that I'm caught up, I'm requesting my mop back and believe I meet the qualifications for resysopping. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: has admin actions from as recent as 2021, last 100 edits don't span past 2023. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a standard minimum 24-hour hold for comments on these type of requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no problems. Contributions show involvement in discussions as well as article maintenance. Welcome back The Wordsmith. SilkTork (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Resysop request (Siroxo)

Resolved

 –  Request withdrawn by requester, who will follow up at WP:RFA when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello! I was a Wikipedia admin for many years, through waves of high and low activity. In 2019 I was desysopped due to inactivity. Over the past years I've returned to being an active editor including improving existing articles and starting new articles.

The primary reason I am requesting resysopping is to continue to use tools such as accessing deleted article edit histories, as they occasionally contain useful references and citations that can be used to improve existing articles. I also anticipate once again being involved in various maintenance activities as my editing takes me there. I've contributed to maintenance and !votes in the past, and have been and will continue familiarizing myself with the updated norms.

Wikipedia has been a big part of my life for nearly 20 years, I'm proud of my contributions, and I'd like to be able to continue to contribute as effectively as possible. Thank you. —siroχo 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Last 100 edits go back to 2011, and as near as I can tell the last logged admin action was in 2008 with an undeletion, so unless I am mistaken the inactivity rules (particularly the "5 years with no admin action") preclude you from this request and a new RFA will be needed. Primefac (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I just did the same calculation and came to roughly the same conclusion that this request would need to go via RfA. SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for the reply. I'll do that at some point in the future. —siroχo 10:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the kind of attitude I love to support in RfAs. Please drop me a line when you've got a few months active editing back under your belt because I'd like the opportunity to consider nominating you. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do. —siroχo 18:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Good luck Siroxo. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#March 2023

The following inactive administrator is being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

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

   Last admin log action: January 2021

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The nominator at my RfA. Sigh! - Donald Albury 02:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• The puppy, sadly, has not spoken in quite some time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed. And I miss her. Katie^talk 22:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of power by the admin Maile66

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.

---

First of all, I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post. All I know is that bureaucrats rank above administrators in the "WikiHierarchy".

When posting my opinion on English Wikipedia policy regarding administrators and the rules affecting them, the admin @Maile66 apparently felt so personally threatened by it that he INDEFINITELY blocked me under the ridiculous pretext of me being blocked for ONE SINGLE WEEK on the English Wiktionary – an in my opinion unjustified block I've appealed. Apparently I am not there to build an encyclopedia, even though I near 3000 edits, over 80% of which in articles.

This is the most poetic, the most symbolic argument in favor of holding admins to account for their actions, that I have ever seen. I'm not even sure if this request is correct, as a part of me believes Maile66 is a subtle genius trying to help me in my cause.

But in doubt, I have to request the competent people to take a look at this, and judge whether such impulsive behavior is worthy of someone with administrative privileges on the – by far – most consulted encyclopedia in the world. I wonder how many fellows have received such "treatment". And once again, this all because I posted in favor of a more direct procedure to hold admins to account for their actions... what is so foul that warranted me an indefinite block?

P.S. If this is not the right place, please move it to the right spot, instead of removing it. Thank you! Synotia (moan) 21:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia, you should cut and paste this to WP:ANI, which is the correct place for your complaint (to start with, at least). Izno (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope there will be no clannish defense. Synotia (moan) 21:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

desysop request (Usernamekiran)

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.

---

usernamekiran (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
I'm not much active lately, I might request for resysop in case my activity increases in near future. Thanks for all the fish, and co-operation. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Um, you're no, and have never been, an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery: he thinks he's being funny *sigh* SN54129 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Note the date ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Dbachmann

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

In accordance with an ArbCom motion ([5] / [6]), please desysop Dbachmann.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Inactive admin for April 2023

The following admin can be desysopped for inactivity:

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

Thanks Ale jrb for your service to Wikipedia. Graham87 18:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Done, with thanks for long service to the project. –xeno^talk 01:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to the 'crats that in future these sorts of complaints be speedily referred to a more appropiate forum, as this is not a page for developing or altering policy. This is obviously not what this noticeboard is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can feel good about this desysopping process: it should read "Fuck you, with meaningless thanks for all you did that we no longer care about." What have you accomplished? Geometry guy 23:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Geometry guy: Community sentiment on this is built on the notion that inactive administrator accounts present both security and social risks. A security risk, as someone who is not very active won't notice if their account is compromised; and a social risk, as if someone not very active they may not keep up with community norms around administrator. Bureaucrats may agree or disagree with the motivation of the inactivity desysopping process, yet they are still charged to carry it out. –xenotalk 23:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC) This kind of oppresive thinking is so pervasive in our society now. If someone causes a security risk, sanction that person, instead of assuming that everyone else is a potential problem. As for "social risk" - do you mean that I might have views that differ from the hive mind and you want to silence them? Well, I just want you to know that when you send these "thank you for your contributions messages" they just piss people off. So if you want to keep doing this, call a spade a spade: "Wikipedia no longer trusts you to protect your account and thinks you could be a threat to our hive mind." Geometry guy 00:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC) @Geometry guy If someone causes a security risk, sanction that person, instead of assuming that everyone else is a potential problem. I don't understand. Isn't being desysopped a form of sanction, or are you suggesting we go further than that? Because an inactive account with advanced userrights is a security risk, for the reasons that Xeno mentioned, whether or not you want to acknowledge it. As for the social risk...well, anyone reading your message would conclude that you've picked up on the fact you don't fit in. This is because you haven't consistently edited since early 2012, and the community has since moved on without you. This is actually fixable, if you start editing consistently again instead of taking the "moving on" so personally. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC) I have not caused a security risk, but have been sanctioned because of the potential that I might. Someone exceeded the speed limit, so let me take away your car because you might do it also. Lol "the community has moved on without you" - do you realise how divisive and exclusionary that language is? Probably not. Like most echo chambers, you don't even realise the hive mind you have created, and have no idea how valuable it would be to have diverse opinions puncture your bubble. Geometry guy 00:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC) If you're going to bring up cars, a better analogy would be "I've been keeping my car in perfect repair, and haven't driven it in 6 months, but I'm getting ticketed just because I didn't get an inspection sticker put on it." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC) You are still an editor here. You are welcome to remain a member of this community and add your own opinions to provide that diversity. But the last logged action you made was in 2012. You have not performed admin tasks since 2012. You have not been an admin to us, the wider community, since 2012. That you, or any other admin, thought that being an admin on this project was some badge of honor showing you to be of greater worth or importance than we lowly editors is unfortunate, but it was and is a mistaken belief. That you feel that it is a sanction to be relieved of permissions you have not exercised since 2012 is again unfortunate, but again that is a mistaken belief. Your admin rights were there for us, the community, and you declined to use them for ten years before they were removed. That of course has nothing to do with this section or this page, and if you feel like berating somebody I welcome you to use my talk page instead of doing it to somebody who is doing what we, the community, asked them to do. nableezy - 01:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC) @Geometry guy I hope you have a better day. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Message received. Geometry guy 03:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

DGG

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

David Goodman, a very long-term editor, admin and former Arb has died-- see User talk:DGG#Passing of David Goodman. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Per procedure: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Deceased_Wikipedians, the rights have been removed. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Request (Prodego)

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

I don't see myself returning to active editing in the near future and I am running up against the inactivity policy, so I would like to request that you disable my administrative privileges at this time. Nearly 20 years is a long time and a lot has changed, but I had some great times on this project. Special thanks to BD2412! Until next time - thank you all! Prodego ^talk 01:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's sad to see you go, but nice to know how you've grown. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your all you've done as an administrator. We are still here if you want to come back in the future. ϢereSpielChequers 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have use for any of the flags from WP:PERM feel free to drop a note. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Prodego for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin privileges (Resolute)

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

As with Prodego above, I don't see myself resuming editing any time in the near future, and taking on any kind of administrative task is even less likely. Please feel free to remove the admin bit. Cheers! Resolute 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That's been done for you. SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Resolute for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC notice

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_editing_on_Wikipedia_be_limited_to_accounts_only? - Notice about a discussion asking whether editing on Wikipedia should be limited to accounts only? - jc37 15:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Change to desysop/decrat policy

Please note that as the result of a recently-closed RfC, all user rights should be removed from users when they are indefinitely sitebanned by the community, including admin and 'crat if applicable. A section has been added at WP:DESYSOP and I have added this to WP:CRAT's list of cases in which a bureaucrat may desysop someone. It's not clear what the exact procedure would be for a decratting under this policy, which may be worth discussing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin I added a little more to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions to clarify that. The procedure would be the same for -sysop or -crat here - someone posts a request here at WP:BN, citing the criteria and providing the evidence. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

..Thanks for the additional update, a posting here is prob best for "where to put the record" for those -crat's that don't come from arbcom - but yes, the actually processing follows from meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal of access for crats. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As a historical note, it's interesting that the onetime presumption of desysop-by-steward has essentially been repealed at common law. That is to say, when desysop-by-'crat was first allowed, it was only under enumerated circumstances, with all others to still be handled by stewards (hence the weird artefact that stewards can unilaterally emergency-desysop but by the letter of policy 'crats can't). Desysop-by-'crat upon death was, I gather, added as an common-sense matter sometime thereafter, and shows the evolution away from that presumption of steward action. And now, more than a decade after 'crats gained the -sysop perm, we've had an RfC that added a new cause for desysop but didn't specify a procedure, and no one's challenged the presumption that such a desysop would of course be actioned by 'crats. None of this is a criticism or call for any policy changes; I just find that an interesting case of wiki-common-law in action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the standard steward rules is that we don't manage permissions on local project with a community when they have the ability to do it themselves; so if a SRP for something like -sysop came up, we'd normally decline it when there exist local 'crats with such access. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Resignation as Administrator (Ddstretch)

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

Resignation as Administrator. Please accept my resignation as Administrator. Chronic illness has prevented me from contributing to Wikipedia for some time. This is likely to continue for an unknown amount of time. If the situation improves, I will be happy to take up the reins again. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done That has been done for you User:ddstretch. I wish you well. SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your past service and I hope you are able to return to Wikipedia in the future! DanCherek (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#June 2023

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

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

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

   Last logged admin action: Feb 2018

2. Yannismarou (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Jun 2021

3. MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: May 2022

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

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

   Last logged admin action: Jan 2008

2. Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Oct 2018

3. Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Dec 2021

4. Electionworld (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Sep 2018

5. Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Feb 2023

Inactive Bureaucrat - Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

(policy)

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

   SRP request filed at metawiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Matt Bisanz is about as old-school WP as they come. I hope he's doing well with whatever he's up to these days. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's always slightly concerning when editors suddenly stop contributing apparently in mid-flow, but as far as I can tell he (or at least someone with that name I'm pretty sure is him) was active in his day job at least as recently as 30 April this year, so my guess is that he's just busy. Whatever the reason it's a shame to see his name here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

He also edited on Commons in February 2023. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is Raul being desysoped this month? From what I can see he should have been desysoped in March under criterion 2. I was not under the impression an inactive admin get 3 months from the month they would actually become inactive under this criterion. Izno (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Izno to be clear, you are not objecting to this removal correct? I'll check in to what may have been going on with the reports. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Follow up, critiera 2 requires a 3 month warning, looks like this editor was on the cusp for a while. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As the admin must be given the warning, and Raul was given it in March, this seems in order as far this buearucratic action is concerned. Feel free to discuss the timing of when the warnings should be given out further at WT:ADMIN. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, not objecting to the removal, just making sure there weren't any significant issues with processing inactivity. IznoPublic (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the bot was broken when Raul should have been notified (see User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2023/February#Inactive admins), and wasn't fixed until March, so the desysop couldn't happen until June. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• If memory serves me, MBisanz made a big move several years back and anticipated this day. I got to work with him on some really messed up SPI cases way back in the day, and found him to be a great guy. Very practical and down to earth, and yes, old school. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wow, Matt and Raul were both big names in the olden times. Just as a point of order, it looks like Raul's last logged action was January 2019, not October 2018 as listed above.[7] It doesn't change anything as far as the desysopping, I'm just pointing it out because if you're using an automated process to generate the list above it might be worth checking out. The rest look fine. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Overwriting a redirect appears in the deletion log, but it isn't actually an admin action (anyone can do it), which is presumably why Xaosflux didn't count it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

    Makes sense, thanks. I knew non-admins could move over a redirect but didn't realize it showed up in the deletion log like that or listed as a G6. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words. I still exist and am fine. I received a big promotion at work and an even bigger promotion to father, which meant something had to go to make time in the schedule. Unfortunately, that was my Wiki work. But I remember all of you fondly and may dip in from time to time. Regards, MBisanz ^talk 10:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @MBisanz: - my heartiest congratulations! Wishing you and your family good health. starship.paint (exalt) 13:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi MBisanz, enjoy your family while they are young. Hopefully we will still be around when your sprogs are off to college. ϢereSpielChequers 21:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Congratulations!! Legoktm (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#July 2023

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

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

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

   Last logged admin action: Nov 2019

Criteria 1 (total inactivity) and Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

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

   Last logged admin action: Aug 2020

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Desysop request (third party)

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.

---

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

Per this removal on their userpage with the summary “Feel free to remove my admin status.” AlisonW should be desysoped for this reason, regrettably. Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW#In case this wasn't seen * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn’t read that. ‘Crats, feel free to ignore. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Illusion Flame, would you like me to remove this request? SilkTork (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Completely up to you. I was originally going to just let it be archived, but I am fine with removal. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Archiving was the idea, though done now rather than leaving it for the bot. If you're happy to leave it here until the bot archives it, then I'll leave it. SilkTork (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. That’s fine with me, I don’t see any reason it need to be removed early. Feel free to use your discretion about this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have BOLDly retitled this section to something a little more inconspicious; it is probably not a great idea to title a section "AlisonW desysop" when the person in question is not being desysopped but has a currently pending arb case about their sysop status. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Interface administrator request (Novem Linguae)

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

Hello. I'd like to request interface administrator to facilitate my work as a maintainer of WP:TWINKLE and mw:Extension:PageTriage. Interface administrator would allow me to deploy Twinkle updates without pinging MusikAnimal, would allow me to edit pages such as MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js without having to put in an {{IAER}}, and would allow me to deploy important hotfixes such as this quickly. I am an administrator and I enabled two factor authentication today. I'm sure I will also jump in at some point and assist with interface administrator backlogs, although maybe not right away since I have a lot of projects right now. I promise to be very careful and err on the side of caution. Thank you for your consideration. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Standard 48 hour hold is in place, but I see no issues with this request. Primefac (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have worked with Novem Linguae for some years now and am continually impressed by his work. I somehow missed his RfA entirely (despite offering to co-nominate him) so I am delighted to show my support here. My only concern is with him taking over all Twinkle syncing duties, I won't have much to do with my int-admin rights anymore! ;) Jokes aside, Novem is a model Wikimedian and talented engineer. Interface admin is a natural fit now that he's a sysop. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Looks fine. SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• + Lourdes 05:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Done. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong

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

In accordance with an ArbCom decision (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong § Scottywong desysopped), please de-sysop Scottywong.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I was this fast and yet still too slow. Useight (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

AlisonW

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

In accordance with an ArbCom decision (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW § AlisonW desysopped), please de-sysop AlisonW. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat

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.

---

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pppery/Bureaucrat chat and join the discussion when you have an opportunity. Maxim (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A shame there isn't a template to ping crats collectively, albeit some may have their notifications turned off. SN54129 18:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There's {{@Bureaucrats}} but it feels like we do talkpage messages for crat chats. Maxim (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

... and SN54129 created that template back in 2022 as a response to Tamzin's crat chat. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it has been used thrice. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am 37. Signed, Dennis. SN54129 21:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, WP:CRATMMS is certainly better for making sure a message gets out. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No need for a talk page message for me; will look at it in the morning. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Seen it. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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