Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

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)