Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

RfA successful with 69.5% support?

I would like to bring to the attention of the 'crats this very recent RfA that was closed as successful despite clearly failing community standards. The percentage of support was only 69.5%, which fails community standard. I look forward to an explanation as to how/why such a controversial admin could have the bar lowered in his reconfirmation RfA. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Three explanations have been suggested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2, where Basket of Puppies also posted this query. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was recused from the RFA in question since I supported in an earlier RFA, but I can state that prior RFAs passed at 61%, 63%, 67%(2x), 69%, 72%, 73%, and 74%. There is no strict bar for RFA and nothing from standard procedures by the crats (7 days, recusals by those involved, non-inclusion of neutrals in ratios, etc) was changed in this case. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the lack of a "bureaucrat chat" was the only irregularity in this case, but is certainly not required. Andrevan@ 19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised both by the lack of a 'crat chat and the unilateral decision to reconfirm Sarek of Vulcan. Yes, admins have been made with a smaller percentage than Sarek's, but those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations. Many saw this one as dealing in the larger issue of documented long-term abuse of the admin's power. In my view this situation called for a thoughtful discussion by the 'crat community, not a call made by one 'crat who offers a one paragraph rationale that many will see as a 'slap on the wrist.' Indeed, to many of those outside the admin/'crat circle, this gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of a cozy insiders group. At a time when there is much debate both on Jimbo's page [1] and by a group of concerned Wikipedians [2] regarding the broken Rfa process, admin abuse and admin recall mechanisms, this decision by a single 'crat to reconfirm Sarek at a !vote below average Rfa confirmation norms without additional discussion seems to me to be thoughtless and flawed at best, and another strong indication that across-the-board systemic reform is needed. Jus da fax 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither I nor, at a guess, Sarek, would oppose "across the board systemic reform". What you make of the more than 150 editors in good standing who supported his reconfirmation, I have no idea - since you don't explain. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't want tog et into a war of semantics, but I don't think Sarek has ever abused his tools, but ther have been several instances of misuse. The former implies bad faith and malice and I've never seen either of those two things when I've owrked with or observed Sarek. there are those who think nothing has been accomplished here, but I think two, less tnagible things will result from it: 1) that 60 editors, most of whom are highly respected community members, oposed the reconfirmation and that so many of them did so on the same grounds will be a serious wake-up call to Sarek that he needs to give much more consideration to his INVOLVEment in a situation before taking admin action, and 2) if a pattern of misuse were to reuslt in an ArbCom case down the line (and I sincerely hope it never comes to that), the concerns raised in the RfA will hold a lot of weight (I think somebody even suggested it might have as much weight as an RfC/U). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This at the root of the corruption here. Sarek has misused his admin tools and passed at 72%. A regular editor who might misuse the tools would likely have failed at 72%. You know as well as I do that even if Sarek's support had dropped below 70% he would have been reconfirmed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Malleus, the crux of this is that you believe he has misused his tools so seriously, but a very clear majority of those who voted in the RfA, do not agree. Now of course, you may feel that your opinion is more than twice as important as anyone else who offered their opinion. Some people would support you in that! But that isn't how it works, sorry buddy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Taking corruption in the meaning of "rotten, as in corrupt meat", yes, quite possibly. Corruption as in "collusion between parties for their own fiduciary gain", that's kind of a bad word to use here or anywhere unless you have really good proof. I've defended an editor before on that fine point and I hope you refer to the former, not some pre-arranged deal or even nod-and-a-wink. I opposed but I'm not dissatisfied with the result, given SoV's apparent indication they recognize the main issue. In reference to HJ Mitchell's comment, I very much expect this re-RFA would have at least equivalent weight to RFC/U as prior dispute resolution in any hypothetical Arb proceedings. I would expect it to have significantly more weight in fact, if it involves the specific concerns raised in this process. Franamax (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrals have, as far as I know, never been counted into the final tally, so the actual support is 72.49%. This query would seem to be without merit. —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, this is in the accepted discretionary zone as outlined in the RFA front matter, although as MBisanz points out RFAs have been successful below 70% as well. Andrevan@ 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, those were not controversial Rfa reconfirmations like this one, with larger repercussions for the community. I would think a higher standard would prevail, or at least that a 'crat chat would be seen as a good idea, to air out the reasoning and allow for multiple 'crat viewpoints. Jus da fax 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Again? Well, again, we seem to have received "multiple crat viewpoints" just above. Anything more needed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of the lot of them and start again would be my preferred option. Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(laughs out loud) Malleus, thanks for a hearty laugh... I think there is something to be said for your idea. Jus da fax 01:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere. It's time to remind ourselves that WP is not a vote according to our consensual mode of editing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Not a vote", indeed; it's just an arbitrary decision taken by the tiny fraction of users who are probably in the worst position to make a neutral judgement. Chzz ► 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Account deletion

For personal reason I am using my right to vanish, would like to see talk page removed and username change to anything that don't have my first name in it. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

Done -- Andrevan@ 04:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to usurp an existing account on EnWiki

Resolved

– User filed a request at WP:CHUU and said request was fulfilled. demize (t · c) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello... I received this request from an IP that identifies as Druth on the French Wikipedia. The user wants to inquire about claiming the name User:Druth on EnWiki. As the admin who blocked Druth on this project, it appears that the two are different individuals based on contributions. I have left a note on Druth's French talk page asking them to confirm the request there (to verify the account). Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Druth has since replied on their French talk page to verify the request. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoring; bot archived this before it was addressed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 11:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Restoring my request. Please, can you take it into consideration? Thanks Druth from french wp. 195.220.72.76 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm reluctant to agree to this, as there are GFDL significant edits in that scant history. Happy to be argued down. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the edits be attributed to the renamed account? (Meaning, if the existing blocked account becomes "Druth (usurped)", wouldn't the edit history show that name?) --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be attributed properly, sadly. You can't just say "Oh, I got this from Bob" if the person's name is Jane, can you? :p demize (t · c) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you in this. My understanding is that - if usurped - the old "Druth" account is renamed to, say, "Druth (usurped)", and all contributions with that account are listed accordingly in the page histories. Thus, the name "Druth" is effectively contribution-free and can be re-used. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Crat has dropped me an email (they're excessively kind, trying not to upset me by contradicting me) to say that longstanding consensus has been to grant such requests. I'm happy with that. It seems wrong to discomfort a good faith SUL user because of a few edits from one subject to indef block. I recommend the user visits WP:USURP and follows the procedure there, citing this discussion. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The request is open on Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. 195.220.72.76 (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Return of Sysop Flag

Hello. I resigned my sysop status and retired from the project awhile ago, due to foreseen inactivity. I haven't been very good at retiring and I can foresee myself returning to active editing within the next few weeks. I've read up on my policy knowledge, and it is as sound as ever. That said, I am requesting that my sysop flag be restored. Please consider. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done and good luck at UC. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with this action. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA for Sadads past closure .....

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sadads

Seems like this is an easy close as promote, yes? ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As well as a not so easy closure. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the community is against promoting new crats that are anything less than perfect admins, it will probably keep happening that there are no crats available from time to time. So I wonder whether we should change the edit notice to say "Do not make a post about it here, ever!" instead. The table at the top will show any crat that there is work to do anyway, so these posts seem to me like a waste of time (I'm not criticizing the good intentions though). Regards So Why 14:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying we need more crats? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Was I too subtle?

So Why 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There are now TWO overdue RFAs. WTF? There must be 2 dozen or so listed at the crat page. GEEZ. BarkingMoon (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Two dozen crats is not really that many considering the fact that they have to work for 14,591,749 users. But since the community has so far been against appointing more crats in sufficient numbers (the last one was more than a year ago iirc), we can assume that such delays are what the community wants. Regards So Why 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly doubt that, more likely they've been driven to only handle low-controversy matters and many seem inactive and most admins don't want to put up with the BS that RFB is.BarkingMoon (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps several crats have come along and passed on them both because they don't want to have to justify "why did you close the slam dunker but not the coin flipper? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's prob true too, the community is such a hotbed of malcontents the crats long ago lost their balls.BarkingMoon (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I was quite surprised too. I thinked before I gone to sleep, that after I wake they will be closed. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough. I have left a not on the talk page of the only 'crat that has been editing in the last hour (The Rambling Man) to close these Rfas and seriously new 'crats. I mean I know the job gets done a little late but it's better late then never. maucho eagle _(c) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's funny people should complain about there not being enough bureaucrats around; I just got an edit-conflict from another bureaucrat also trying to close Sadads at the same time as me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave Logan to you then Deskana. I keep getting kicked off my connection, the joy of living in the "country" and trying to fix things up on something approaching a dial-up. For the record, I would close it as unsuccessful, but if you wanted to start a crat-chat then fine too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, might need a crat shat :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, rebooted, got connection, seized the day, so closed Logan too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You just edit conflicted me again! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry D...! FWIW, I am easily contactable by email and if I'm within reach of anything useable (i.e. not my iPhone but something else like a laptop), I'll happily get on with these things. Perhaps we can get some kind of automated alert, we can stop this from happening again? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, The Rambling Man and Deskana. I will definitely take the criticism at my RfA constructively. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 17:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good. I'm sure that you'll do well next time if you work at fixing your problems; your RfA was very close and there's not much in the way of major problems from what I can see. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to D and TRM for getting on this. But as to crat acty level, I think crats are only responsible for admin flags and renames. I bet if we go through the rename logs (which I don't know how to get to) and count how many different crats did renames the last 3 months, it's less than half those listed as being "active". RFAs simply aren't that big a work load. It seems there's only a few a week. I think this is more a problem of crat burnout and people with extra rights having to put up with so much abuse, so salute those who do stay active. BarkingMoon (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, rename log is here. Basically, go to Special:Log and choose "user rename log" from there. :) The Helpful One 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The log does seem to confirm BM's point though, all those renames were done by the same half dozen of crats. Also, BM is probably correct above, when they say that "most admins don't want to put up with the BS that RFB". I speak from experience of course but if you check Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies it's quite sad to see that there was no real RFB since June 2010 (the last unsuccessful (mine, incidentally) was in January 2010 (not counting the WP:SNOW one of course)). So we are now almost a year without an RFB. Regards So Why 18:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping prove my point SoWhy. Most people with crat flags don't do a darn thing. Maybe they should have it removed after, say, a year of no activity. This is also a true but sad comment on wiki in general, why so few run for crat and the ton of BS those who do have to put up with. BarkingMoon (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think removing the bit after a certain period of inactivity is wise, it's just like Wikipedia:PEREN#Demote inactive admins (the same reasons apply for the crat bit). Regards So Why 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the way it works for stewards. If they don't "stew" anything for a year they lose the bit. That's the reason the "founder" right was made, so that didn't happen to Jimbo. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But in the meantime we have people thinking "we have 2 dozen crats, that's plenty" but in reality we have only 6 or so that do a darn thing, and that's not enough. Same logic for the admin numbers and activity. Maybe on the crat page make a separate section for those who haven't done a damn thing in 6 months. BarkingMoon (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the crat page had such a section until Uninvited Company removed it last year. I'm not quite sure as to why but if there is some consensus for it, we could get that section back (maybe let a bot update it once a week)? Regards So Why 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GO FOR IT! UC is prob one of the inactive onesBarkingMoon (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I was asleep for this whole discussion, but I am active and have closed other RFAs this month. I have always maintained that WP:RIG and we need more bureaucrats. I invite SoWhy or anyone else up for it to run again. Andrevan@ 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, thanks to TRM and Deskana for checking in and the other active 'crats keeping things running. That said, only 15 current bureaucrats, or 0.8% of current admins, have edited in the past month (with four more who happened to edit in the past month, but that was the only time this year they've done so). Again, with my greatest respect for the people who are around, these kinds of delays shouldn't happen on a project with 1,800 admins, of whom several hundred are probably qualified to close RfAs. It's not the biggest deal by any means, but given the reaction I presume would break out if an RfA were closed 20 hours early, I don't think it's fair they should be left overdue that long either. Juliancolton (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As to SoWhy running again, I'd vote for him, but given what I've seen of RFA and the sheer hate that can appear out of nowhere (from what I've seen in the short time I've been around), I'd expect anything is possible as to how it'd go. I couldn't blame him nor anyone for not running.BarkingMoon (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may shamelessly promote myself again (;-)), I have previously indicated that I might run again if a crat was willing to nominate me again; thinking along these lines, I think there are a number of highly qualified admins who would make great crats and who would run if nominated by a crat or another highly respected editor. I'd nominate some people but I've seen opposes based on me being the nominator, so I wouldn't want anyone to suffer this way. ;-) Regards So Why 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for User:Ched_Davis too.BarkingMoon (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, I'm supportive of the "any competent admin with a little tenure can have 'crat" that other projects like Meta work on. Sadly, the flag of 'crat, and the RFB process here, are so difficult that folks that have been admins for years will not even consider running. We may not be short of 'crats now, but, like any other flag, natural attrition will put us in that position eventually if the community at large is adverse to making more. Courcelles 20:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, does any current administrator want to serve as a guinea pig for the first RFB of 2011? NW (Talk) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It took almost 24 hours to close an RfA? Clearly we need at least 400 new crats. Prodego ^talk 22:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Again... try closing an RfA 24 hours early. (I know I've been criticized at Commons for closing an RfA two hours prematurely.) What's the difference? They're both equally unfair. Juliancolton (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This has probably been proposed before, but if people are concerned with the perceived unfairness of late votes, why not have a bot freeze the RfA once the clock hits 168hrs with a "pending closure by bureaucrat, please use the talkpage for any further comments" archive template? Skomorokh 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For fairness, I pay more attention to the version of the page when the RfA should have ended than when I actually close it. To this date I've never found any significant differences between the two versions which would alter the close, but if I did I'd definitely prefer the version closer to the scheduled close date than after it. Using the most recent RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan, as an example we see that the votes made after the closing time (8 supports and 1 oppose) would not alter the outcome of the RfA. I don't think it's an actual issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I (the more input the merrier, I reckon), but if the general feeling is that this is a problem, it's a trivially fixable one. Skomorokh 12:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it a major issue, but it was the subject of significant discussion after a recent RfA, and one which did make me wonder whether there maybe should be a hard cut-off .--ClubOranje^T 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

More bureaucrats please

I agree with SoWhy, we do need more bureaucrats. I'd also say that everyone of the admins that have posted in this thread would make excellent bureaucrats and I would vote for all of them. And I can think of a dozen other admins that would make excellent bureaucrats too. I'm wondering if it's simply the process that is stopping them from applying, or is it that people just haven't getten around to it yet? Who has been thinking of running? Are there any crats willing to nominate others? We really should do something now that we are talking about it. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 21:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to nominate User:EdJohnston. Not a single oppose in his RFA three years ago and widely respected for his fairness, civility, patience, and calm enforcement of policy. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EdJohnston. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the process is keeping people away, as well as the fact that not every admin is interested in closing RfAs (AKA free dramah!) or renaming users. I know I don't care for either task. But if I were to suggest a crat candidate, Soap (talk · contribs) comes to mind. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care for most admin tasks, but were the community likely to accept me as a 'crat I'd gladly put myself up :p I enjoy the real behind-the-scenes stuff more anyway. Sadly though, I'm not likely to be accepted at an RfA or an RfB anytime soon, but my ultimate goal for the future is to become a bureaucrat and do renames/close RfAs. demize (t · c) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is that a goal? Write articles. Being a bureaucrat is not glamorous, it's just menial tasks. Andrevan@ 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. Or at least, that's what it should be. Unfortunately, the "only the very very very best"-mindset at RFB has lead to many qualified admins failing to become crats (Julian for example), thus creating the impression that being a crat is somewhat the "holy grail" of Wikipedia user levels which only demigod-like editors can achieve. We currently have much higher standards for crats than for members of ArbCom, although only the latter have the authorization to banish editors for ever and remove the admin-bit. Regards So Why 07:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

People should not take the bureaucrat status as a badge of demigod-ism. The ArbCom are the true workhorses of the Wikipedia "bureaucracy" which leads to their high burnout rates, and I think they are held to a very high standard, especially given how thankless and difficult the task is. A bureaucrat's job is to make more admins, so it has a very high numerical approval bar, because although we occasionally promote rogue admins, a rogue bureaucrat could make a much larger and more difficult mess -- an army of admins at different IP addresses could require a site database rollback or worse. The difficulty of promoting a bureaucrat is by design to avoid this scenario -- we need a lower error rate in the process.Of course, I have always maintained that the reasoning "we don't need more X" is not sufficient to oppose. Andrevan@ 08:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be far easier to simply steal the cookies of an existing bureaucrat (or even worse: a steward) than to devote the years needed to get yourself legitimately promoted. I can't imagine a scenario where a database rollback was needed, let alone anything "worse" (what's worse than having to wipe out hundreds of thousands of edits?); the 'nuclear option' in the event of total user-rights compromise is for the sysadmins to remove all permissions from affected groups until we've sorted out who is actually supposed to have them: admins and 'crats still have their flags, but they don't get any extra permissions with them (and particularly can't use Special:UserRights to spread) until we can go through and work out which flags were added maliciously and remove them. But all in all, this is not a sane or reasonable reason to oppose the appointment of more crats, it's like opposing air travel because some planes are used to drop cluster bombs... Happy‑melon 10:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't specific in the constraints of my "rogue bureaucrat" scenario, but I think your argument that stealing an account would be easier applies equally well to "bad egg" admins, who still nonetheless get promoted occasionally. Anyway, removing permissions is hardly a "nuclear option." Imagine if a vandal bureaucrat created a massive number of vandal admin accounts, who then proceeded to merge the page histories of random pages, and/or, perform database-intensive actions like (un-)deletion repeatedly until the site was effectively DDOS'd. Rollbacks and/or downtime are basically par for the course. That's just what I got off the top of my head... it's more like the full body scans at airports, not because of cluster bombs, but because of hijackers. Anyway, I didn't say I opposed making more crats, I was just explaining why the bureaucrat consensus level is higher. Andrevan@ 06:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A bureaucrat's job is certainly not to "make" admins; his or her job is to codify the community's decision to make an admin. There's really nothing that can be used to justify the standards at RfB here on enwiki; almost every other project I edit has a vastly more lenient promotion process, and none of them have ever had any issues. At meta, nearly a quarter of all admins are bureaucrats, and you don't even need a full election to pass (the requirements are merely that you've been an admin for six months' time and you have endorsements from two existing users with the bureaucrat flag). I've been an admin for nearly three years here and a bureaucrat on at least one other project for two years (and two more since then) and adminship is much harder to get accustomed to, much more influential, and requires significantly more judgement than bureaucratship. Juliancolton (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A bureaucrat literally has the technical ability to make admins. That is a bureaucrat's job function. Calling it "codifying a decision" obfuscates what the bureaucrat actually does - he makes admins. I didn't say why or how he makes them. He decides either to make an admin, or not to make one, based on the community consensus - but his job is still to make them. Anyway, I think Meta has much lower standards because it's internal and has a limited use case, and it wouldn't be as disastrous if it went down since it's not one of the web's most popular and trafficked websites. Meta admins are also a self-selecting group and are periodically removed for inactivity. Andrevan@ 06:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also: You need a higher approval rate to become a crat here (~85%) than to become a steward (80%), although the latter can create far more mess than a crat can (a rogue steward could eliminate whole projects or remove all permissions from other stewards). Regards So Why 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Although I acknowledge that the voting methods are very different so it's not an airtight comparison, I still think it's ironic that the leading vote-getter's percentage in last year's ArbCom election would be borderline for an RfB. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's more like apples and oranges. ArbCom is an election from a self-selecting group, each bureaucrat runs against only the community in an isolated incidence. Andrevan@ 06:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The community can change this if they so desire. If there's a consensus that the bureaucrats should apply lower standards to RfBs than we are currently, then I'm sure all the bureaucrats would implement that. I can't say for sure since I can't speak for the other bureaucrats, but I definitely would. Perhaps it's something worth discussing. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Andrevan@ 08:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps confirmation is set restrictively high for such a position. A trusted user is likely no less a threat to make the wiki wheels drop off with a five percent less entry threshold. Off2riorob (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold?. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So Nominate Already

Enough talk. Eligible Admins should allow their names to go forward so that the Community might judge them. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds ominous. I don't think anyone is eager about getting judged right now. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought judgement day was yesterday? ;-) Regards So Why 19:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think most people just don't want to be bureaucrats. I don't blame them. There's no reward in it, it's boring, repetitive labor, just like clearing backlogs as an admin or on OTRS. You don't even get any particularly impressive abilities. If admins really want to become "Wikipedia demigods," ArbCom is the job which has real power. Being on ArbCom is more like being a circuit court judge for a crazy state. Andrevan@ 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

But, and that's the ironic part, those who would be willing to be crats, will always be opposed for "hat-collecting" or "power hunger" (if I may point out, you yourself opposed my request for that very reason), so there is no way to break this vicious circle: Those who want to be crats will be opposed for it and those who don't will be opposed for their heart not really being into it. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that cratship is boring, repetitive work without any impressive benefits. But there are people who like doing such work (myself included) and who are willing to do it, so I don't think that's the real problem. The real problem is that those who want to do such work are mostly not allowed to do it because they want to do it. Regards So Why 07:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not make the connection; your RFB was over a year ago and I have supported and opposed many things before and since. However, I think most of the opposes were about this NEWT thing you made. I personally was miffed when you came to BN to complain about the backlogs that really didn't exist, which is why I threw that into my oppose, but I wouldn't have remembered that I opposed in Jan 2010 if you hadn't pointed it out, and maybe others would similarly feel more amenable to supporting. Or not, but it's not like you're really missing out. Andrevan@ 07:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Lovetinkle's sentiments. Wikipedia seems to get bogged down in long drawn out discussions rather than taking action. Don't get me wrong, discussion is important and does have it's place, but I would dearly love to see more people considering a run for bureaucratship. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And how is bringing aboard new bureaucrats going to change things? I mean, bureaucrats have a far lighter (though still very important) workload than administrators, and most of their tasks have either been relegated to admins (like granting most userrights). One late RFA (in which closing RFAs is a social task of bureaucrats and not even technical) is not going to end the world, just as closing an AFD late will similarly not. Moreover, adding dozens or more bureaucrats is not going to ensure that things are going to be closed on the dot.

Everyone seems to think that, since we haven't had a request for bureaucratship in a long time automatically means that something must be wrong. I would disagree and say that perhaps things are simply running as scheduled. –MuZemike 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my 2p to this discussion - I actually enjoy closing RfXs, but rarely get an opportunity. There are so few these days and when there is one that runs the course, it rarely seems to do so when I'm onwiki. The workload at CHU and its variants is far greater - and even that isn't so pressing, thanks to the efforts of the active crats. Some of the admin areas are backlogged - the current need is to find more people to run as admins. Do that, and there'll be a pressing need for more crats to close the plethora of RfXs, which would be a lovely problem to have. For now, one RfA that over-ran slightly - not ideal, but really, not worth jumping up and down about. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What Dweller wrote. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with not even RFAs to close is the same as not enough crats around -- most people don't want to put up with the heaps of BS it takes to survive one successfully. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

+1 Dweller; more often than not, I'm 10 minutes too late too close :) -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should appoint any good candidates for bureaucratship regardless of "need", but I have to agree with the comments above. It's a sorry sight to see more RfBs than RfAs... WJBscribe (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin backlogs are massive, but the trial by fire that is RFA is nowadays impossible for all except the very best to have a shot at, which is a real shame. I dunno, maybe I'm old fashioned, but it would be nice to see a return to the "Net positive" approach for RFAs. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

RfB threshold discussion and current RfB

Most know there is a discussion at WT:RfA about changing the threshold for successful RfBs. How does that discussion impact the current RfB? Or does it have no affect at all? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the standard policy is to enforce what was in force at the beginning of the request; we usually do not change rules, for better or for worse, in the middle of a process. -- Avi (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, it seems unlikely that the discussion about the threshold will be resolved before the end of the RfB anyway. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW the Maxim closure by Avi is seemingly uncontroversial, and I endorse it. Andrevan@ 05:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I also endorse the closure. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat role in inactive sysop suspension proposal?

Thread retitled from "Wikipedia:Furlough".

Hello, in response to a discussion (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suspend sysop rights after 1 Year of inactivity) that seems to be showing some support, I have created Wikipedia:Furlough. It is a very rough draft, and likely to change a great deal. My main concern is the perception of creating an unnecessary strain on the Bureaucrats, though to be honest I don't think the process will be used very frequently . If you would care to comment on the topic from the viewpoint of a Bureaucrat, please do. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to get the stewards to do all the desysopping? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, they have loads of free time, don't they? ;p ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of my point, yeah. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Has it been decided what "inactivity" classes as? Edits/log actions? That will need to be stated on the Furlough page. The Helpful One 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It has not been solidified, I think in general we'd prefer "logged in", though we will probably have to settle for WMF project edits, as the software won't tell us about last-login. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any talk of what will happen to the rights of administrators who are also bureaucrats? Without comment on the merits of the proposal, there are currently two bureaucrats (1, 2) that meet the proposed criteria for inactivity. –xeno^talk 13:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have not been mentioned, so I don't think this should cover them. I fear trying to hash that out at the same time might further distract.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Per comments at the Village Pump, my page is somewhat redundant, so I've tagged it CSD. I don't want it distracting from the main discussion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. —DoRD (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth considering if what is proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suspend sysop rights after 1 Year of inactivity is within 'crats remit. It appears to me that it's a steward task. 'Crats promote after a RfA. If a steward dysops an admin, it is a steward who also resysops. And if this becomes a steward task, it becomes a purely mechanical one - there is no judgement involved. The account asks to be resysopped, and they are. It takes place out of view in a sense. Would it make more sense for it to be a 'crat task? It would then be the responsibility of a person promoted on en.wiki to 'crat status to ensure that a request for admin rights on en.wiki is appropriate. Though without the ability to conduct any sort of checks, what could a 'crat do to ensure the account hasn't been compromised? And would the 'crat who reactivated the tools, then be responsible for monitoring the admin? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow: if an administrator requests desysop at m:SRP (which is the only way to do so - bureaucrats do not have the technical ability to remove sysop rights), they must ask en.wiki bureaucrats (not Stewards) to reinstate under the WP:RESYSOP procedure. –xeno^talk 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) To comment further, if we are going to make it so that a crat does all of the above, then we could make it that it is the crat who removes the admin right too, following a similar policy as to meta, then we don't need to ask busy stewards to do the work. However, if the removals are going to be done in batches, then it would make more sense for a crat to post on meta and a steward to do it in a batch. I don't see why we need a steward to re-activate an admin right, from what I believe in cases that a steward desysops an account currently, it will be a crat who re-sysops that account if needs be. The Helpful One 15:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Stewards don't generally perform actions where local users are available so yes, it would have to be a bureaucrat who eventually resysops the account. There was a proposal some time ago about adding desysopping rights for bureaucrats (like they have in hiwiki, fiwiki, simplewiki and a few other projects), but it didn't get enough support. Jafeluv (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I think there are only a few rare cases where a Steward would resysop after they performed a desysop (restoration following a emergency removal at their own remit that turned out to be a good faith mistake, mistakes from misclicks, etc.).

And while this comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement (or disendorsement) of the proposal, adding in the suggestion that bureaucrats be given the technical ability to remove sysop rights would probably render the discussion hopelessly convoluted. –xeno^talk 15:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for confusing things, as I was under the mistaken impression that crats were the ones who performed desysops. Given the direction the discussion is going at the pump, I don't think many people would object to giving crats the right in circumstances where an admin requests it, is (obviously) compromised, or has a period of inactivity as is being discussed, as these are circumstances which need no new consensus to remove rights. Though as mentioned, it is probably best to put this to the community after the current discussion is resolved.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. IMO, with 59 supports and 14 opposes, there is pretty clear consensus to implement this. It might be good for a bureaucrat to do it? AD 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, such discussions should run for the usual RFC length of 30 days. –xeno^talk 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with xeno on the length of time this should run. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Combining accounts' edit history

Hello. Can someone combine the edit history of my original account user:Eskimo.the with my current user name? I have never been blocked or used accounts at the same time...just "re-incarnated" a few times when I came back to editing after a break. I went from User:Eskimo.the --> User:David Able --> User:Quinn1. I had a bcat combine the latter two accounts, but realized that my edits from the former are not showing in my edit history. That would be great if someone could do this, as it would put me over ~1500 edits or so and be much more accurate. You can send an email to the Eskimo account, as the email is still active, and I will confirm that this is legit. Thanks! Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, last I checked it is beyond the capability of this version of the wikimedia software to "combine" accounts, just reallocate them to a new name. I'd suggest you tag the old ones with {{Former account|Quinn1}}. -- Avi (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well shoot! Thought I had an easy way to get my edit count over 1000. Oh well, guess I'll have to just write that article on the John Ford Home that's been on my to-do-list. Thanks anyway. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bewaaaaaare!!!!! --Dweller (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

CHU question

See Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username/Simple#Question. It's a good question. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom case started by sock of a banned user

Resolved

– Being discussed at other venues. –xeno^talk 15:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee

It seems that the filer of the request for arbitration re MickMacNee is the sockpuppet of banned John254 (talk · contribs), which puts us in a tricky situation.

Whilst an ArbCom case in respect of MickMacNee is probably long overdue, this particular case is now tainted. The other editors who have participated in the case have done so in good faith. Jimbo has stated on his talk page that MickMacNee should be able to walk away from the project with dignity. This could be achieved if MickMacNee was to request a year off Wikipedia on his own volition, but I very much doubt that he will do so. It has been suggested in the ArbCom case that MickMacNee is banned for a year, a proposal which I believe is likely to pass.

So, what options are there? Does the existing case continue, taking into account the circumstances of filing? Does it get a procedural close and a new case gets opened, starting from afresh? Or would it be better to have a formal ban proposal filed at WP:AN for the community to decide the issue. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this posted here? It is not a matter for bureaucrats - it belongs on the case talk page. –xeno^talk 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In which case I'll raise the issue over there. Wasn't sure where to bring this up, but figured this would be a better venue than ANI. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

RFB Promotion Threshold

Wikipedia talk:RFA#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold?

I think the discussion over at WT:RFA has about wrapped up, and a few people have been calling for a close. Since this is all concerning your collective role on Wikipedia, it's probably best if a 'crat reviewed the discussion, and together with the rest of the 'crats decided whether there is consensus to lower the threshold. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns about the small number of editors who have been involved in that discussion given the importance placed on crat tasks by the community. Has the conversation been promoted at the usual places - WP:CENT and The Signpost? --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is extremely well watched, by editors who take an interest in that sort of thing. There's plenty of comments there, and imo there's pretty clear consensus. AD 12:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the page is closely watched by a small group and on the watchlist of many others. Why the objection to promoting it widely? --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it's already been open for ages. It seems like it's being dragged out so the same old "arguments" against lowering promotion can be brought up to sink the proposal (whether they're relevant or not) - which at the moment looks clear to pass. AD 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in it being dragged out... nor in it being speedily concluded. I have an interest in getting consensus for an important decision from the community, not from a small number of editors. You seem worried that more editors coming will necessarily sink the decision. You may be right, or you may be wrong. If you're wrong, then we'll both end up happy if the conversation is advertised and more people come along. But if you're right... then that implies that finding consensus in its favour now would be foolish. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was posted to CENT on 29 May 2011; I'm not sure if it was advertised at any other venues. –xeno^talk 12:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. Maybe discussing it here will give it a little bit more exposure, too. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I count 40 people voicing support / oppose comments and maybe 10 others who joined in. This is significantly less than the participation enjoyed when we last discussed this - seeWikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. However last time, as far as I can tell, the discussion was only advertsed at WT:RFA - see here although it may have been place at WP:BN as well. But certainly not CENT. It is also worth noting that the pole stayed open for just 8 days - far less than the current one has been open. Pedro : Chat 07:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not finding fault or anything, I'm just curious. When the 80% gathered by far the most response (71), why wasn't it implemented back then? — Ched : ? 09:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Rdsmith4 seems to have assessed the consensus then. This was his comment: There's no strong consensus for any single one of the options, but that was bound to happen. However, by my reckoning, there's not even a firm consensus, using the standard applied in the past to other polls of this type (80%), for lowering the "bar" at all. I'm counting the "no change" lobby as 40 people, and the "change, please" lobby as 110 people (22+1+71+15+1), which means 73% of those participating favor some amount of change. I'm not sure where to put the last two groups, so I've left them aside. However, this fact doesn't worry me terribly much. It's clear enough that a lot of folks want to see us judge RFBs more leniently, so I will begin to do so, and I hope the other bureaucrats will do the same. 85% sounds like a fair place to start. This should not be taken as a permanent policy, nor as a guarantee that the number will grow lower in time: I make no long-term commitments. I would rather ask the community again in a while. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with numbers, as I know that others will demand that we use them. Only counting bolded votes, ~71% support lowering the threshold. That's a comparable proportion to last time, and counting non-bolded rationales the percentage is probably a little higher. The proportion in support of this change is lower than the 80% being advocated for RfB decisions, albeit if you take non-bolded rationales into account, it possibly falls within the 75-80% bracket.

Of more significance, the discussion was progressing qualitatively, right up until it became a vote (although looking back, I concede that I may inadvertantly have triggered that). From that point onwards, the vast majority of rationales on both side focus relatively heavily on a mathematical theshold, and relatively little on the case for or against actually changing.

Several perfectly relevant points against change have been raised and not so much as acknowledged, much less responded to or rebuffed. Questions such as why RfB is being tinkered with, given that RfA reform will presumably translate to RfB too? Such as why it is believed that the benefit of lowering the threshold outweighs the risk of damaging the quality of crats as a whole? My involvement in this discussion noted, I truly believe that AD is wrong to dismiss these as frivilous, or of going over old ground. They're matters that haven't been explored in any depth, and are surely fundamental to the decision. And I'm confident that they would have been discussed, had this thing not descended into a vote.

An example of a frivilous (but not incorrect) point that wouldn't merit "dragging this out" would be to note that the motion for change is on the large part being carried by current and former admins and arbs; groups that know a lot about commanding the community's confidence. But the previous two points, among others, certainly do not fall in this bracket.

My conclusion is that some key concerns have been ignored, quite possibly due to the feeling that if two thirds of people support something, there's no need to acknowledge concerns. In a usual situation, 65-80% is a comfortable enough motion for something to happen. For the reasons outlined above, I do not believe this to be a usual situation. —W F C— 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comprehensive analysis is excellent WFC. I would, however, disagree that AD is dismissing comments as "frivilous" - as a tenured editor he knows whereof he speaks I feel. I would note that the proposed change to the bar (as a percentage) was introduced by myself although I did not anticipate the direction note edit summary my comment would take. My more general concern is that this is hardly some drastic change to Wikipedia (which I feel Dweller is implying) - it's a tinkering with an internal process that has very low ramifications - 'crats have no more power over the encylopedia than admins do on a technical level after all. Pedro : Chat 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact they have very much less, so it's absurd that the bar is so high. Except of course for the fact that like administrators it's a lifetime appointment. The Wikimedia software does not separate editor "rights" rationally, everything being accreted onto the generic administrator, so nothing can change until that's fixed. And then hopefully lots will change. But I'm not holding my breath. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pedro: I acknowledge that this turning into a vote was never your intention. I also agree the proposed change is simple, and that simple is often great (the RfA-related edit mentioned here, for example). But being simple does not automatically mean that a decision that should be taken lightly.

In my view, the universal level of respect that Wikipedians have for crats is one of the few true pillars of confidence that ordinary users have in the adminship process. If 75% of editors, having carefully weighed the pros and cons up, truly believe that this small but not insignificant change is a reasonable risk for a reasonable reward, I'll have to concede that. But I truly believe that based on the quality of the discussion, a decision shouldn't be taken yet.

Malleus: A crat has quite a wide range of discretion over controversial or borderline RfAs. Which isn't a problem at present, because the community has complete trust in the people exercising that discretion. It's a logical extension that if the quality of crats were to decrease, the quality of RfA decisions will decrease. It may be that we set the bar so absurdly high that there is value in lowering it, but I'm not convinced that a case for it has been made. And I'm certainly not convinced that we should tinker with RfB until we know the future nature of RfA, and how this will impact on what a crat is expected to do. —W F C— 22:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I must not be a member of your precious community then, because I don't trust anyone, and therefore checks and balances need to be put in place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't trust anyone, why on earth would you support diluting one of our best checks/balances?

I should clarify: my point about this descending into a vote based on a mathematical threshold was not aimed at Pedro. I've just realised that it could be seen in that way. Pedro simply suggested a threshold, and I applaud him for suggesting a simple solution, even though I fundamentally disagree with it. My comment refers to those who turned what was up until then a high quality discussion about the merits and pitfalls, into a series of Supports and Opposes. —W F C— 22:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be inhabiting a different galaxy to the one that I live in; how many light years away is yours? Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Although I do know that on my planet, a week is considered to last seven days. Ta-ra. —W F C— 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I do not have complete trust in the people making the decisions - some of which have been awful. How exactly is someone elected in 2004 or 2005 having complete trust of the community? Makes no sense whatsoever. Closing RFAs is generally a vote count, and when it isn't there's usually some sort of discussion anyway. So it's quite often a group decision when it comes to the actual closing. But I've still yet to see any evidence that making the pass mark 90% (or even 85) is helpful or reflective of what is rough consensus on-wiki. Bureaucratship candidates are already judged more harshly as it is, so not only is the bar higher, the scrutiny is too. All for a role that many sister projects simply give out to experienced admins who ask for it. Why everyone makes such a huge deal about them having "universal trust" is beyond my comprehension. If we trust admins to close AFDs, which don't even have numbers to help, surely it should be easier to get bureaucratship than adminship? AD 23:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it should, but one of the problems is that bureaucrats have to be admins. The whole "rights" issue needs to be sorted out and rationalised. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That I agree with.

AD, our common ground is the belief that an undefined number of current admins are rubbish. How you've gone from there to the belief that we should make it easier for people to be able to judge contentious RfAs I don't know. As an aside, if admins weren't trusted to close XfDs, the majority of the problems at RfA would be gone. And I would then agree that cratship should be far less of a big deal. —W F C— 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-tool

Resolved

Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm requesting re-tooling after almost six months since handing them in. While I have enjoyed not being an admin -- as I expected -- I'm increasingly finding things on the project that it would be more efficient to deal with myself if I had the tools, and while I'm not going to be anywhere near as active as I used to, I can still help out a bit. This was my user talk page at the time I requested removal (on meta-wiki). Again, sorry for dicking around.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I or someone else will re-tool in the next few hours. Don't apologize for it. We really don't mind people taking breaks like this and it is easy for us to do. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored; welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 02:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Contribs merge

Resolved

– This is not something developers generally do as they have generally have more pressing needs. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to kindly ask for reassignment of the contributions from my previous account, Brandmeister (old) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to my current Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account; so far the contributions are split between the two with most of edits being linked to Brandmeister (old). I was once informed that it's not possible to merge accounts, but hope there is a way out from my hardship. Brandmeister t 00:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can confirm each account is your own (eg: by editing each userpage with the opposite username), you could probably ask the tech guys to do it. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 02:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Developers probably can do it, but convincing them that it's a good expenditure of their time is another thing. It best to just mention that you had another account which is no longer used, and link the two that way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Flag for bot

Resolved

Hello, 'crats - could I get a bot flag for User:HersfoldArbClerkBot please? It got approved recently but doesn't have the flag yet. Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the delay... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason it's still sitting in the "trial completed" section, which would explain the delay (i.e. it was never moved to WP:BRFAA). –xeno^talk 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks much! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit now "live"

The two Requests for Comment mentioned above are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts

Since this affects crats, please take note of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts. Regards So Why 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC on bureaucrat promotion

Resolved

– I have closed the discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The now-ended RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold? is still in need of closing. Since the discussion concerns standards for promoting 'crats, I believe many people think it would be most appropriate for one of you to close it rather than having a non-crat admin do it. There was some discussion here about closing it a week or so ago, but no one has done so yet. If someone could step up, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the close as saying that a ratification of the result is desired. The result seems to be that the discretionary zone for RfB success begins at 75%. (Implied is that votes are !votes, that !votes can be weighted down if, for example, the !voter is an SPA, or the rationale is poor). So, if the question is that:

The discretionary zone for RfB success begins at 75%

I agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. The closure was invalid. Less than 40 people participated in that discussion, 30% of them opposed. There was never a consensus for anything. Ruslik_Zero 06:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether they opposed with anything meaningful is another matter though. Numbers don't equal consensus. AD 08:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins

Resolved

– Affected users given after-the-fact notification; local user given appropriate application of oily fish; stewards advised of apparent shortfall in due diligence; proposal ongoing to provide for local execution of process rather than at meta. –xeno^talk 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins passed with an overwhelming consensus. The procedural removal of Admin rights needs to be preformed on some 200 inactive Admins. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As this removal was done in violation of the policy, the rights should be reinstated. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should just leave them and continue as normal... if any inactives return they can be reinstated. It seems a waste of time to readmin them all only to have to deadmin again. AD 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the User:Orphaned image deletion bot should be reflagged, as a bot that has sysop rights to delete pages, it never edits, and always appears inactive on a list of admin by last edit. Might want to check and see if other admin bots got flags removed in this, as well. Courcelles 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maxim has restored ops for the Orphaned image bot. Any others? –xeno^talk 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any others in the Meta log. Courcelles 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats do not have the ability to remove admin rights from any account, inactive or otherwise. Useight (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They should all be messaged right now though, perhaps by a bot, according to the policy. RA should have done this before posting here. I shall go trout him. AD 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think it would make sense for bureaucrats to be able to desysop accounts themselves. Especially now when such actions will need to be done more frequently. Jafeluv (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The community rejected that for reasons I still don't understand last year. Regards So Why 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for another proposal, since the community is finally seeing sense it seems. AD 21:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I started a discussion at the Proposals VP about it. Regards So Why 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a great result. Recently imo it has become clear that admins returning after lengthy periods need a bit of re integrating and re training before letting loose, this will enable at least a little discussion, so, after two years of not contributing you want to be a administrator again... why not edit for a couple of months and contribute again and we can see how you get along. The tools should not be easily returned to long term non contributing accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a discussion for another day though; as the proposal was worded, former administrators can get their tools back with a simple "yes, I am up to date on policy" statement. NW (Talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whose idea was it to use that list? It quite clearly ignores admin actions, and using those is one of the clear criteria of "active" per the proposal. NW (Talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this was poorly executed on a number of levels (see User talk:Rick Block#WP:LOA/I regarding the list that was used). One wonders why ResidentAnthropologist was in such a rush, and further, why stewards acted on the premature m:SRP request, despite Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins#Implementation not being finalized. FYI, a steward has also removed the rights of two bureaucrats who met the inactive sysop criteria, even though bureaucrat rights were not discussed in the original proposal. –xeno^talk 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the 'crat rights to Redux and TUF-KAT as the steward was not authorized to remove them per that discussion (which, as xeno correctly points out, did not discuss 'crat rights specifically). I did not restore the admin bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored a few +sysop bits that had logged actions that were before the one-year mark. I skippped one because the action was on July 7 (not getting fussy over a few days), two because they were clearly leaving (deleted user/talk pages). I restored an admin who shouldn't have be resysoped because they were clearly leaving, so I'm getting that fixed. And, with regards to 'crat rights - the admin package, while independent, really comes before the 'crat package. Seeing as the role of bureaucrats tends to be more politicized, it doesn't make sense to leave a user with 'crat flag but without an admin flag, because the policy doesn't explicity mention bureaucrat rights. Maxim_(talk) 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the bureaucrats, I would argue with at least part of this RFC passing, the community has at least partially agreed that admin/crat are separate enough to handle independently of oneanother. NW (Talk) 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, a talkpage note should be left for each of those 200 admins, explaining what's going on, and how they can request the bit back. --El on ka 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Elonka. Unlike Meta or Commons, our new inactivity policy doesn't require a fresh RFA for a returning admin, so ~250 reflaggings at this point would be a poor use of time. Let's get the notices out, and see what the response is. However, this really should not have happened, and in the future, the notifications need to be done before the deflaggings. Courcelles 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Arbitration Policy all request for removal of administrative tools (other than self-requests) are handled by the Arbitration Committee. So, I amended the Administrator Policy to reflect this. Ruslik_Zero 10:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that ArbCom would want to see an RFAR every time an inactive admin needs the tools removed.... T. Canens (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be done in batches. Ruslik_Zero 10:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to me, at least, that if the community has decided to remove admin rights from certain administrators due to inactivity then that has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee nor the Arbitration Policy. ArbCom need not be involved in this in any way, shape or form. Besides, they have more important things to do. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And actually, on reading the policy I note that it says they exist to "handle requests for removal", not "handle all requests for removal", so even if you go by the policy they have no reason to be involved either. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. It is clear that they handle all requests with just one exception. Ruslik_Zero 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree both with your assertion that it is clear and with your assertion that they handle all requests. It does not say 'all', and excluding one subcategory of 'removal of requests' does not automatically mean all other possible subcategories are included. Bear in mind, I used to be an arbitrator, and I can tell you with confidence that had something like this proposal happened while I was an arbitrator, ArbCom would have no need to get involved. However it is clear that the wording of the policy needs to be clarified, either way. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The arbitration policy needs to be updated, if it states that. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

All is not included because it had been superfluous before the latest policy change was adopted—after all, Arbcom historically handled all requests except obvious cases of self-removal. There is another problem, though. This policy (removal of inactive administrators) did not specify how it should be have been done procedurally. As a result the first such request was successfully bungled. So, it is important to have an independent review before any tools are removed. Ruslik_Zero 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the Arbitration policy to take into account the results of the discussion mentioned at the very top of this section., basically, I added "from active administrators" to the "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools" entry under the scope of the policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That edit represents a substantial change in the arbitration policy , and has been reverted (there may be instances where the committee needs to remove the rights of an administrator who is not active). In lieu, Kirill added a footnote, which I've tweaked slightly to reference and mirror the admin policy section on this. –xeno^talk 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with "substantial", but whatever. The Arbs have far too much sway and stick their noses into too many places it doesn't belong. They have their places and their uses, but they too often overstep their authority and hand down edicts from on high, as it were. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was substantial in that it changed the policy such that the committee could only desysop active administrators. Amendments to the policy must follow this procedure. (Withholding comment on the remainder of your remark.) –xeno^talk 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

← As an FYI, the committee did have some brief discussions on this (see "D" in this announcement). The committee does not necessarily need to be included (as this was a community-driven initiative), but would be willing to play a role if the agreed-upon implementation included the committee. My personal thoughts are that the procedure should not be "just anyone post at m:SRP for removal of rights any time an administrator hits the inactivity period", as that would be too chaotic for stewards. The optimal solution would be a monthly or quarterly posting to m:SRP by someone in an official capacity (e.g. an arbitrator or a bureaucrat) after that individual carefully reviewed the list of admins to have their rights removed and ensured that 1) they meet the criteria [several in this mass removal did not] and 2) they have been appropriately notified [none in this mass removal were appropriately notified]. –xeno^talk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the language Ruslik0 added, since the interpretation of ArbCom involvement being required wasn't in the RfC and doesn't seem to have support from others who have commented here. But I agree with xeno that a more organized process should be developed, whether it involves ArbCom or not. Having random people show up on Meta asking for desysoppings under the new policy would be a mess. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To close the loop on this, it should be noted that the section now suggests that the request be made by en.wiki bureaucrats [3]. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pressing on

So how are we going to move on from this? Is someone going to send out messages to all those admins? I am a strong proponent of adminship not being for life (and long after), but this was rushed inappropriately and now we have dozens of desysopped admins who should have been notified. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the notices should go out first to see if there's any response. I suppose time will tell whether or not all the desysop stuff has to go through the arbs or crats .. or whatever. We tend to tweak things when there's been this big of a change. I don't think that once the current group is all resolved there's really more than a handful a month that drift into that "inactive" category. Then again, it's not like I'm one of the big guns here.— Ched : ? 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested draft follows. –xeno^talk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

“

Following a community discussion, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who had not made an edit or logged action in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of your actions that could have led to sanctions).

”

Looks fine to me. To avoid future rash actions, may I suggest that it be expressly stated in this new policy that requests to stewards to remove rights from admins on inactivy grounds must be made to them by enwiki bureaucrats? WJBscribe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Limiting the requests to bureaucrats makes sense, and it's probably better to do the removals in batches as suggested above since there's no immediate hurry to get the rights removed at the exact moment. Xeno's wording sounds good to me. Jafeluv (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, after this initial batch, what is the actual anticipated throughput of this process likely to be? That is, how many admin accounts fall into long-term inactivity per month? I'm assuming it's fewer than twenty, and a monthly cycle would be sufficient. Send out notifications during the first week of the month, and run the desysop after the end of the month. Allowing a three-week response window shouldn't do any great harm—what's the difference between 56 weeks of inactivity and 52 weeks? We'll pretty much avoid the hassle of resysopping individuals who are travelling away from internet access, and it allows breathing room to review the batch of potential desysops for errors like the one made with the orphaned image bot. It means that everyone knows what to expect from the process, and it means that the stewards get bugged just once per month.

As a second point, will an attempt be made to contact the admins using their registered email addresses as well as through their talk pages? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You can get an idea of how many will be removed per month on this page, although as pointed out above it's not entirely accurate. As for the second point, the policy as currently written requires both a talk page notice and notification by email. Jafeluv (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

At present, any admin who is inactive since several months will have had their "email notification on talk page change" configuration flipped on, though I still think an explicit email should be sent. –xeno^talk 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Commons and Meta both do it every six months, and require more activity than our policy does. We've got a lot more admins than either project, though. I'd think every quarter, though, would be easier on overhead and process, than a monthly process, especially as the policy requires notification a month before removal. Running this monthly would make it a constant drain on resources. Courcelles 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to be using Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive for anything that matters (like removing admin bits), the bot really should be changed so it looks at logged actions in addition to edits. I won't have a chance to do this for at least a week or two. The relevant source is at User:Rick Bot/scripts/getadminactivity if anyone might be interested in working on this before I get to it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with several of the suggestions above: The wording of Xeno's proposed notice looks good; I like the idea of funneling the requests at meta through the 'crats; and I think a quarterly process would be just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Xeno's wording looks good, thanks. I might add a date that the policy changed, just for context, but that's a minor quibble. We may also want to consider updating WP:RESYSOP to allow for a streamlined process if/when an inactive admin returns. --El on ka 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions? The process is already pretty streamlined; the request immediately above was fulfilled in 6 hours... –xeno^talk 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just a phrase after "uncontroversial", like, "...uncontroversial, such as if the administrator access was removed only due to inactivity." --El on ka 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How's this then? –xeno^talk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick turnaround! I made a few minor tweaks.[4] Feel free to continue tweaking? --El on ka 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with WJB's comment that the people requesting to stewards for removal should be some sort of functionary-types who will ensure procedural due process is followed. I'm very concerned at the lack of notifications in the above request that occurred immediately after the policy was changed and the negative impact this could have on returning users and do not expect to see it repeated. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We also need to get notifications out to all the folks who were affected by the premature removals. The good news is that the odds of any given person from that list reappearing in the next few days are low, so probably notices will be out before anyone comes back to find their permissions mysteriously changed. But I think everyone (including the person who initiated it) agrees this was mishandled, a mistake to avoid repeating. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone should feel free to take my proposed wording and run with it. Maybe add a "With thanks for your past administrative efforts." –xeno^talk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Shall we put it in a template? That would make it easier to work on. Looking at CAT:UWT, maybe something like {{inactiveadmin}}? --El on ka 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary version of a template created at Template:Inactive admin. Please review and change as seems appropriate. This is for notifying those who have already had their privileges suspended. I assume we will also want to create standard messages for the pre-suspension notifications called for in the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

List of users needing notification: [5]. –xeno^talk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RL0919, I checked {{inactive admin}}, and made a few tweaks.[6] --El on ka 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Xeno, Elonka and Graham87 for their edits to the template. Are folks comfortable enough with its wording for the notifications to begin? --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd say proceed. --El on ka 16:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I started delivering notifications. Going alphabetically; did the A-B-Cs so far. I no fancy-shmancy bot writer, so I'm just doing it with AWB. Will probably work on it off-and-on over the weekend unless someone else beats me to finishing it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You might consider driving User:MessageDeliveryBot. At the least, please enable "Do not use section edit summaries" in AWB (per WP:NEWSECTION =) –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who got picked up by this policy change, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's a good move and I appreciate that you're making the effort to notify people, even after the fact. As they say, no harm, no foul. Gazi moff 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

← FYI, RL0919 (talk · contribs) has finished getting all the after-the-fact notifications out and I thank them for their efforts, along with those who helped develop the message. To the extent that the inactive sysops have not recently logged in to modify their preferences, they should be getting an email note about their talk page being updated. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FORMER

How should this change be reflected on WP:FORMER? Could someone go through and add the current batch who were removed? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend a new header/section altogether. –xeno^talk 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[7] ? Pedro : Chat 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's the list. I've pasted it to that section. –xeno^talk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - I was just moaning over how to get the list in easily and saw you did it :) Good work, agree with the changes and reposition. Incidentally, did you note the change from "some" to "many"? I think that's pretty uncontroversial given the numbers but willing to be challeneged. Pedro : Chat 19:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Many" seems reasonable, especially given today's addition of the 250+ some-odd that are definitely not active... –xeno^talk 19:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (just FYI I got the list by copypasting [8] and then using Excel to chop it up with the find/replace to insert a delimiter followed by the "text-to-column" feature, then used WP:AWB's list comparer to compare the resulting list with the list of admins to filter out the ones that got re-upped)

Yeah, yeah I was going to do it that way to. Geek. :) Pedro : Chat 19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, bearing in mind that they didn't resign nor were they desysopped for abuse, so a separate section is necessary here. Acalamari 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks smart people! MBisanz ^talk 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications

Would it be possible to clarify steps have been taken to make sure something like this isn't rushed again in future without notifications? Xeno has left a notice at the meta permissions page pointing to this page and discussion, but I want to make sure that those that pushed this forward and took the actions are asked to comment here. From what I can tell, The Resident Anthropologist made the request at meta, but has not commented here since then. I am going to ask them on their talk page how they would handle something like this in future. I am also concerned (like xeno above) that the Stewards granted the request prematurely before things were quite ready. My question is whether this was a one-off misunderstanding, or whether it is a systemic failure. FWIW, the steward that actioned the request was User:Matanya. Per his message on his user page, I'll notify him on his meta page about this thread and ask him if he is willing to explain here what happened, and what could be done to avoid it in future. If it was a systemic failure (and not individuals rushing things), then can someone note here what has been done to make sure a repeat is avoided? Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I didn't realise it was so long ago, and didn't look far up enough TRA's talk page - see the trouting here. Three notes left: [9], [10], [11]. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one have yet to understand why Matanya actioned the request in the first place. I was particularly amazed that he continued after it was drawn to his attention that local policy did not support his actions: "Matanya just said on IRC that it would be stupid to not finish those few left." I think we're still waiting on an explanation? WJBscribe (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Matanya replied over on meta and asked me to quote here what they said:

Hello, glad you came here to discuss this issue. One thing that doesn't reduce my responsibility regarding this wrong action, as you can see in the logs, is that I wasn't the only steward how fulfilled this request. For example: here. Anyway, to get to the point, I have learned my lesson form this failure, and a rush removal of such, wouldn't happen on my side again. Moreover, I have checked where was my point of failure, and I found out that my mistake was I didn't read the result of the vote carefully enough and missed this very important detail. I sincerely apologizes about this action, and hope no harm had happened. Thank you for pointing this out, and I'll appreciate if you'll quote my words on the relevant pages. sorry and best Matanya 11:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[12]

That's good enough for me. Still waiting to see what the stewards' response in general will be. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I really dont have alot to say here other than I plum forgot about the 30-day notification and posted the request after the RFC passing it. I also was unaware this extended discussion of my actions was existence. I originally posted there saw the "To request your administrator status to be removed, go to Steward requests." Figured I was in the wrong place and self reverted. I subsequently placed a request at Stewards. Apparently an editor reinstated my deleted comment and neglected to notify of the thread's continued existence. I dont hold it against them at all. I do realize I must look really arrogant to some people who may think I was ignoring this thread discussion on my actions.

I take responsibility for attempting to implement the new policy without following the notification instructions built into it. It was error on my part that has caused quite a bit of trouble on the here and for both aspects I apologize. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in here. While sub-optimal, the end result is probably not that far off from if the appropriate notifications had been made. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To respond to Carcaroth's original post in this subsection, "what steps have been taken to make sure something like this isn't rushed again in future without notifications" - the relevant section has been updated to read "Requests to stewards for desysopping on inactivity grounds should be made by English Wikipedia bureaucrats." (though it seems the responding stewards did not refer to the section as it read on the day of the request, otherwise they may have realized that the requisite notifications had not been made). So this is perhaps an issue where individual stewards should be reminded to perform due diligence rather than a systemic issue (notwithstanding the responsibility of local users not to make illegitimate requests to stewards).
From the 30,000-foot perspective, there are currently proposals on the table to extend the technical ability to remove administrator rights to local bureaucrats in certain situations, including inactivity. Should the proposals carry, I would expect that stewards will no longer act on non-emergency requests for desysopping from this project. –xeno^talk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for restoration of administrator privileges

Resolved

– WP:RESYSOP'd

Hi all! I was recently left a note on my talk page and I'm wondering if this is the proper forum to request restoration of my (former) administrator privileges. If so, great, just let me know what the next step is. If not, would someone mind pointing me in the right direction? Thanks in advance! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 02:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't needed these rights for a year now, why do you need them now? Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Why do you need them now? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question directly rather than with questions: yes, this the the appropriate place to ask for restoration. You just need to wait for a proper bureaucrat to respond, and if you meet the criteria as discussed at WP:RESYSOP, then they will take care of it. You are welcome to answer the non-bureaucrat questions above, but that is optional, not part of the resysop process itself. --RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ocee does not need a reason. He has asked, and so it will be done. Prodego ^talk 04:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that. That's the stupidity of the system. Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your admin access has been restored. It was suspended due to inactivity and not in controversial circumstances, so there is no reason to withhold it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither was there any reason to restore it. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can we not have a repeat of the above discussion every time someone requests restoration of their rights? Those who don't like the current policy should lobby for it to be changed. In the meantime, it is what it is.
Whilst comments about whether rights should be restored in a particular case are helpful - e.g. drawing our attention to problematic behaviour prior the rights being removed, or evidence suggesting the account may have been compromised - general objections to the restoration of rights in accordance with the current policy are not. WJBscribe (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask whether the bureaucrats look for problematic behaviour or evidence of an account being compromised? I'm asking because that may happen one day and if the rights have been restored before someone points this out in a particular case, the bureaucrats will look silly. Especially if the evidence was right under their noses. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with WJB, there was consensus for the rights of inactive users to be removed, but it was also agreed that the rights could be requested back should the user return. The person passed RFA at some point, presumably, and hasn't done anything wrong, presumably, so there is no reason to not return them. AD 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think there should be some changes to the current policy though. Ocee has just been regranted tools, despite being inactive for over a year and his last 50 edits go back to 2009. While this was within the agreed policy, it makes no sense just to give the tools back, it defeats the point in the removal in the first place. There is a discussion under way here about some changes needed. AD 11:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I was also trying to find out when Ocee's RFA was, and where that page is. But I think this is one of those rename/anonymity issues. See here. That log summary by Kingturtle ("anonymity issues") is public knowledge and in a public log, so I don't think it is something that can't be noted here, but I would hope bureaucrats would be aware of that and double-check things before resysopping. If anonymity issues like this shouldn't be public, then I would suggest that requests for resysopping from such users not be made in public, as that will inevitably draw attention to the user. Maybe the bureacrats should think about how to handle private resysopping requests? Carcharoth (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think adminship requests should ever be done in private. If there are privacy issues then the admin should perhaps just go without being an admin. Being an admin involves being accountable to the community, and secret sysopping and desysopping isn't at all helpful. PS I know who Ocee's former account was, and it's not difficult at all to work out. AD 11:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not difficult to work out, and I have now found the RFA. The year was 2006, which is what I wanted to know. My point is that there are a number of cases like this, and the de-sysop/re-sysop cycle will just draw attention to them as people try in vain to work out the history behind inactive accounts that pop up again after a long absence. Which is why I think the bureaucrats need to have some standard approach to cases where no RFA exists under the existing name. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that a careful review of relevant pages goes without saying. In fact, we resolved some time ago that a 24-hour deliberation period should be observed to give other bureaucrats the chance to approve, but I don't think that's necessary for inactivity suspensions (unless the inactivity was precipitated by a controversy of some kind). If there is consensus to modify the new policy in some way so that suspensions are not to be immediately reversed on request, then so be it; until then, we should follow the current procedure without questioning its general application in specific instances. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, as long as bureaucrats that resysop, and then find there is a problem they missed, do the right thing (or other bureaucrats do it for them). Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that goes without saying, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was actually referring to two things, both the cry that would go up for the re-sysop to be undone (if problems later surface) pending further discussion (this may not be workable - what for instance if someone points out a problem weeks later, rather than in the first few hours?). And also the bureaucrat considering their position. This was best expressed by WJBscribe in the discussion on the 24-hour wait period for resysopping:

I think that bureaucrats who choose to restore the tools without waiting for comments from the community about controversy they may have overlooked, or input from other bureaucrats, do so at their own risk. Should the decision to do so prove to be in error, I don't think a bureaucrat should be surprised if the community's confidence in them is shaken and would, I think, need to consider their position WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) [13]

That sums up my feelings on the matter as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps I'm not involved enough in this discussion, but where did this hypothetical issue (bad re-sysop, goes rogue, breaks Wikipedia) actually become a real issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tbsdy Lives, lied on this noticeboard about the circs surrounding his resignation, got resyssopped because obviously lieing to crats is not grounds for denying a request, went seriously off the rails. DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more a case of ensuring community trust that a new process is working OK. Like asking for feedback, rather than treating it like a routine action. It might also be a good idea to pre-empt the inevitable discussion in a year or so when some resysopped admins from this lot get desysopped again (having returned to inactivity). Being desysopped and resysopped repeatedly under this process is something that might not go down too well. I would hope that anyone returning and asking for resysopping would at least have the courtesy to state whether they intend to return to activity in the next year or not. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

But isn't the bluster and energy wasted on this completely overwhelming compared to the effort involved in re-sysoping an admin just to de-sysop him/her just over a year later? What are we actually trying to achieve by this? If the community don't trust the 'crats to make these decisions, perhaps the community should be questioning the position and rights of 'crats rather than subparts of their responsibilities? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As the crats commented in this situation - the returning inactive user currently does not have to answer any questions at all about their intentions, if the crat finds that they did not leave under a cloud, no matter now long they have been inactive, they give they resopp without question or reason to. This is not really the place to discuss this as the crats have no say in this at all, its a community decision. I would suggest an RFC but there was just one that created this update so perhaps we should wait for one year from now and we will be able to see how many asked for their tools back and what they did with them.Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Though I would look more at editing activity, as there are some thing admins do as admins that are not logged. If an admin resysopped under this process returned to regular editing activity and stated that they found the admin tools useful while doing this, that alone would be enough (for me at least). On the other hand, if someone came back, asked for the tools back, and then went inactive again for a year, that would be silly (though activity on other projects should be taken into account). But as you say, let's wait a year and see how things go. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although imo still not perfect the new policy is better and clearly nothing has gone wrong so we can collect some editing contribution feedback and get back to it next year sometime. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Astonishing, this new policy is still shiny and already we see an attempt to prevent those reopped regaining the tools. Now I bet no one saw that coming? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the help on the procedural issues RL0919, and thanks as well to AD for taking some time out of your day to restore my administrator privileges. Appreciate it, fellas! ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 21:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Commenting slightly in the vein of Spartaz, this is why I complained above about the removals done without notice. While I don't know if ocee would have followed the new policy and opt'd out of inactivity removal after being notified, it would have avoided this entire debate if he was notified and opt'd out. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a minor point - but as far as I know, there is no "opting out" of the WP:INACTIVITY procedure. While making any edit or logged action would give you another year's grace, you would still be subject to removal for inactivity if you didn't make another edit or logged action over the next twelve months. –xeno^talk 13:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, making that one edit a year in response to the annual notice would serve as an effective opt-out, but I see how that term is not technically correct. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin bit

Resolved

– Proposals live.

Per this discussion at WP:VPR, there seems to be sufficient consensus to re-visit this proposal which failed in the beginning of 2010. As I wrote at VPR, I created two RFC drafts for this proposal, one for the technical ability and one for the policy (with thanks to RL0919 and xeno for the idea):

Since I am not skilled in creating RFCs and this board is visited by many users interested in bureaucrat-related topics, I would like to invite your help in creating these RFCs. Note: Those are still drafts and I need people to help me finish them. Especially since the last RFC had unclear scope and wording, I think we should try to be extra careful in the wording and layout. Regards So Why 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'd oppose either, as I'd want to think it through fairly well first. Two notes though. One, it certainly does change the power structure around this joint if it would go through. and Two: I'm not sure that running both proposals concurrently is the best method. Seems it could get a tad confusing to some. Meaning that perhaps we need to establish "IF" the crats should have the ability first. Then worry about when to apply it once it's been granted. Certainly food for thought. Awaiting further input, and both pages watchlisted. — Ched : ? 21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
To expand a bit on my line of thought. There is already a huge divide between admin. and non-admin. The fact that we have some .. ummmm .. anxious(?) administrators who have no qualms about placing a "block" when there may be some gray areas, and questionable circumstances often leads to much drama and discord among the rank and file. Having a "rogue(?) crat that simply "takes away the bit" (even if agreed upon by fellow crats) seems to move "GovCom" to "GovCrats". — Ched : ? 22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I expect that a "rogue" bureaucrat who started desysopping people outside of established policy would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an ArbCom hearing. A rogue admin might get away with wrongly blocking some naif who doesn't know how to fight back. But in a wrongful desysopping the victim would be someone well versed in wikipolitics, with a cadre of probably sympathetic fellow admins to help the case along. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, and I can sympathize with that viewpoint. However, let's admit that any and all of the "ArbCom desysop" efforts are certainly not without their share of drama and often divisive effects. They are also quite difficult in reaching a decision, and often the results of multiple cases. Are we sure we want another layer of complexity here? — Ched : ? 22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This could actually reduce the complexity. Rather than having to take an admin to ArbCom (which in itself is a lot of work and requires a fairly large incident) in order to get a removal of the bit, a consensus on ANI would suffice. Similar to the way that community bans are issued, the process could remove the drama of the desysop, at least a bit. Having seen a few of both go through, bans imposed by the community are by and large less divisive and dramatic than those imposed by ArbCom. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Bureaucrats, as recently confirmed, have the highest bar to jump over in terms of community trust. I have never understood why the power to make admins is granted to 'crats, but not the obviously important tool of removing the sysop buttons. I think the dual drafts, while possibly confusing to some, are a good idea, as the power and the criteron for de-adminship should be considered apart. Jus da fax 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note: As I said above, those are only drafts, so starting to discuss and/or !vote on them now makes no sense, since they wording may still change. Instead of fragmenting the discussion again by now talking about the merits of the proposal(s) here, I would really ask you to help draft those RFCs, so we can start having the discussion there soon. It's evident that there is some need to discuss this but doing so here or at the RFCs' talk pages just defies the point of having RFC(s) in the first place. Regards So Why 12:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We'll be pretty soon asking for the technical ability for bureaucrats to remove the crat right eh? Their abilities are laid out at Wikipedia:User_access_levels#User_access_level_changes, which probably needs amending as well. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I updated the footnote to include the inactivity policy. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 16:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for restoration of administrator privileges (2)

I too would like my request admin privileges returned. Please note that I said privileges, not rights, since they can and should be treated as such. My account has been inactive due to other real world constraints, which includes working at a restricted computing environment. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done After reviewing WP:AN and WP:ANI and finding no issues there, and finding no evidence of any issues anywhere else, I have retwiddled the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of Admin Bit

Hi, 'Crats. I was de-adminned for inactivity. Per that policy, I would like to request that my privileges be re-instated. Thanks! SQL ^{Query me!} 03:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No problems here. I or someone else will get to it later today. Welcome back. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I also didn't find any reason to not resysop here (and I found plenty of reasons to resysop).

Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC snowballing

After the recent controversy over a compromised inactive admin account which was quickly followed by Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins, we're snowballing into more RfCs which spills over into the Bureaucrat Unchecking issue, as I had expected. Maybe we should have a set date where we can lump all proposals together so that a bureaucrat can close them all at the same time? having to read through each of the proposals one at a time to figure out what they want precisely is very time consuming and perhaps a drain on much of our resources. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think a bureaucrat should be closing a proposal to give a new right to bureaucrats. –xeno^talk 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're old-fashioned. And yes, a bureaucrat should not close a proposal giving rights to bureaucrats. So, who then? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Either an administrator (who is not also a bureaucrat) or another established user, I suppose. –xeno^talk 16:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (and I don't really you're old-fashioned, unless that's what you want me to think...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely =) –xeno^talk 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Though, I suppose we admins are arguably even more biased than the crats, since the proposal is to give the crats power/authority to strip us of ours. (per User:Dweller below). :-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point! So, we're left with an established editor (who is not also an administrator or a bureaucrat). (I suppose asking a non-enwp based Steward to close it would be another option) –xeno^talk 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not genuinely concerned about either group but finding one who and hasn't got an opinion on this (even just finding one who is active and hasn't commented will be nigh on impossible); so as a practical matter you're probably right.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize I'm a bit biased on these, but if the current discussion trends hold up, I think the closes will be fairly obvious. A closer who wanted to find no consensus (or favor for a minority view) in a policy discussion with over 200 participants and 90% expressly favoring a particular result, would have to have a sack bigger than Santa's. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the other part of the original post, there are currently two interrelated proposals (bureaucrat removal of adminship) set to close on 7 August. These proposals were presented as separate-but-related for a (imo, good) reason, which was discussed here. Another (removal of bureaucrat permissions for inactivity) is set to close on 8 August. I don't see value in lumping that with either of the other proposals, and others have agreed. Are there any other proposals related to bureaucrats? –xeno^talk 16:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that bureaucrats are terrific. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Useight (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Support per nom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose unless terrific is not italicized. ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose to TRM, but it'd never work between us (wrong shades of blue...) Bencherlite ^Talk 10:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Doug - I'm active, haven't commented, and really dont have an opinion. I am inexperienced though.--v/r - T P 13:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Cratstats

Does anyone know why this template from SoxBot thinks that the Active RfB is Overdue? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled. Which template? WP:CRATSTATS or the one at the top of this page? Can't see that problem with either... --Dweller (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Cratstats}}. It's still showing the number of "overdue RfBs" as 1. Jafeluv (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it's updated by SoxBot (talk · contribs), you probably should ask X! (talk · contribs) directly why their bot thinks so. Regard So Why 08:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, WP:CRATSTATS is lagging by four months =) –xeno^talk 12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither humans nor bots seem to have the wherewithal or patience to edit that wikimarkup monstrosity. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Might have a stab at it in a bit if people are really nice to me and things quieten down at work. Probably not the renames section though :) - that's now looking like a pretty huge job. I used to have spreadsheets that duplicated the contents to work from, which made it all a bit easier. Sadly, I lost them in a hardrive crash... WJBscribe (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As of the timestamp seen in my signature, the template I use that is updated by SoxBot says that there are 2 hours left, so I think it's working now (maybe X! fixed it). -- Atama頭 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean User:X!/RfX Report, not {{Cratstats}}. Jafeluv (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I got you, never mind then. -- Atama頭 22:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold, welcome to the gang

And with two recent successful RfBs, can we now stop discussing how it's "impossible" to pass RfB? --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think despite those two examples, a number of good candidates still are wary of RfB or, like me, remember how their last attempt failed. I do hope your optimism is justified but I'll await some more RfBs to see whether this really is a new trend. That said, and despite my oppose !vote, congrats Hersfold. I sincerely hope I was incorrect in my assessment. :-) Regards So Why 12:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree: welcome! To SoWhy: it took me four tries, but I finally made it. It can be done, even with unusual circumstances. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all! And SoWhy, I promise I shall do my best to prove you wrong. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

An overdue RfA

Someone may want to close this RfA. Unless my math is wrong, it is overdue almost 24 hours.--Rockfang (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, but a certain individual has been making personal appeals to the oppose voters trying to get enough of them to change their votes to make the RfA close as successful. The efforts don't seem to be working, and I don't see any reason to prolong the pain by waiting out said individual's attempts. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Some may be unaware that there is a somewhat related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Extend RFAs before closing as .22no consensus.22 - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Done -- Avi (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about Right to vanish and Clean start

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee—here—about how to formulate WP:RTV and WP:CLEANSTART for the future, so that they're consistently applied, humane, and something the Arbs and bureaucrats feel comfortable with. The problem we've had for a while is that IAR is invoked a fair bit, which results in some people being vanished then allowed to continue editing, and others not, even when circumstances are similar. Input from bureaucrats would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Request to restore admin privileges

Hi there, could you please resysop my account, which had been desysopped due to inactivity. Cheers, --JYolkowski // talk 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --JYolkowski // talk 00:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Resysop Request

I'd be most grateful if you could restore my sysop privleges which were recently remove due to inactivity. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'll get to this after lunch. MBisanz ^talk 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done (since it looks like MBisanz has taken a very long lunch). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, life distracted me. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the lunch really that amazing? What did you have?

···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A question (and suggestion) regarding user name requests

I've been active in some admin areas, but not in reviewing unblock requests. I started looking at some today. Three of the requests were requests to unblock so they could apply for a new user name. In all cases, the editor had under 100 edits, and was using a name associated with a corporation or entity.

It is my opinion that such requests should be rejected, and the editor should be advised to simply abandon the unacceptable user name and create a new one. I think we also suggest that an editor should provide a link to the other account, if they create a new one (per WP:SOC "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts.") I suggest this qualifies as one of the legitimate exceptions. If we don't want a user to appear to be editing on behalf of XYZCorp, a notice on Jane Doe's user page that she is the user formerly known as user:XYZCorp defeats the purpose.

It is my belief that 'crats will not do a rename when there are few edits associated with the first account, per the advice in Wikipedia:Username policy: "User accounts with few or no edits will not normally be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account."

However, that advice does not define "few". I think it could be as high as 250, but I suspect that will be viewed as too high, so I propose that "few" be defined as "fewer than 100". Of course, if there is some convention, please let me know.

If we can agree on a number, recognizing that this is merely a guideline, and requests with fewer can be honored with good cause (and those with more might also be rejected), we should modify the advice given in the standard unblock request template, to let them know that they shouldn't bother requesting a change in username, if they have fewer than n edits, whatever we decide n to be. It seems quite odd that we would encourage them to request a change in name, then reject that change in name, when we knew it would be rejected.--SPhilbrick T 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually we only decline requests for rename when the account is very new and has only a few insignificant edits. And by few, we're talking about, say five or ten. If they've got dozens of edits it will probably be processed. MMV. –xeno^talk 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought the bar was a bit higher.

One editor I reviewed had 6 edits, I trust that would be rejected. Another had 39 or so, it sounds like that one would be accepted. It still may be useful to modify the template, so that editors with five edits aren't encouraged to request a new name.--SPhilbrick T 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In cases such as this, if they really want to keep their existing edits, I just rename them. It takes far less time, and is more friendly and non-bitey to the new editor than insisting they have to abandon their new account. Renaming is basically just reviewing a few pages and then clicking a button. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I must have misremembered. Somewhere I got the impression that it was enough work, that it might not be done for a handful. Sounds like it is more commonly accepted than I had thought.--SPhilbrick T 17:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Nihonjoe: it's not that big of a deal to fulfill the rename, and there are benefits to having the attendant history move to the user's new compliant username. –xeno^talk 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in with xeno and Nihonjoe; it's far less bitey, which I think is the better option, as there's a slightly higher chance (IMO; I have nothing to back up that opinion, just a gut feeling) that we'll get a productive editor out of the situation. Net positive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, about the only time I don't do a rename is if it specifically violates a policy or guideline (a company name, a vulgar word/phrase, etc.) or if they keep wanting a name change every five minutes. Otherwise, I'll generally just go through with it. It's really not that much work to do it. Perhpas we'd be more picky if we were really, really busy, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (note: this comment is not to be used by anyone as a reason to not appoint more bureaucrats). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I use it as an opportunity. I'll typically request they confirm they have read WP:COI and understand it applies regardless of username, before I agree to the request. Saves the grief of them going off and breaching COI on another account. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea. Requiring a rename (as opposed to abandon-and-generate-new-account) ensures an unbroken history, so if/when the obviously promo account starts editing in a COI way, it's easy to see where that started. → ROUX ₪ 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion to abandon a username and just create another mixes WP:BEANS into WP:SOCK. My wish is that every new IP editor be auto-offered an available and pronouncible username to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Centralized talk page for username change discussions

In the interest of convenience and ensuring our customers receive timely responses, I've centralized discussions related to username changes to Wikipedia talk:Changing username. Any bureaucrats or other interested users should watch that page if they haven't already. –xeno^talk 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysop request

Once the parallel RFCs on giving bureaucrats the ability to desysop conclude, and the ability is implemented, I'd like to be the first to be voluntarily desysopped by a 'crat. I'm retired, so there's no rush (and why I'm asking now), and if it gets forgotten, that's not a big deal either. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure it'll be dealt with whenever. It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

" It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. " - I'm well aware; if I wanted that, I'd have asked for it. Rd232 ^talk 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to be desysopped then that's the approach I suggest you take. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I could make a request here and now, and in a week or three once they're able, a 'crat would do it. I don't want a steward to do it. If it's too much trouble, then never mind, I'll get desysopped for inactivity in a year. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What about 'crats who are stewards (there are two of us). In the cases of self-requests (or other non-controversial situations) stewards may act on home wikis. So is it that you do not want to bother on meta, or do you want someone acting as a 'crat to remove the bit? -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rd232 probably wants the local rights log to reflect the change. –xeno^talk 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well (a) I wanted the log to be local (b) I supported giving crats the ability, and thought it would be nice to be (among) the first to be desysopped by a crat. It seemed a simple idea but I guess it's throwing people a bit. Rd232 ^talk 00:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem waiting for the RFCs to end before handling this. He said he's in no hurry. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's leave it there. If someone remembers, great; if not, that's fine too. Rd232 ^talk 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing the desysop RFCs?

Hi there. Since thirty days have almost passed on those RfCs and discussion seems to have slowed down, I guess they are soon ready to be closed. That means, we need to find someone to do so. Obviously, it shouldn't be a crat since they are the ones directly affected by it but I was wondering, whether we should ask a member of ArbCom to do it, seeing as they are probably one of the most trusted group on this project. Thoughts? Different suggestions? Regards So Why 15:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For once, these closes are hardly rocket science; finding an 'impartial' closer is more for form's sake than a genuine need. It should be fairly easy to find someone from ArbCom to close it; I agree that they should be asked. Happy‑melon 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Any senior editor in good standing has the authority to close this. Sure, the Arbitrators are all "senior editors in good standing", but don't ask them to close it just because they were elected to a dispute resolution body. NW (Talk) 15:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of asking an ArbCom member is not due to their duties but rather because they are trusted by the community. Sure, any editor in good standing can close them but imho it should be done by someone whose close will be accepted by almost every editor, so we can avoid people later arguing about the close. If you know anyone else we should ask, your suggestions are of course welcome. I can only think of people who either !voted in the RfCs or who are on ArbCom. Regards So Why 16:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just ask Jimbo to close it.

···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo would work, but so would a bunch of other people; some that immediately come to mind are WereSpielChequers, AlexandrDmitri, PeterSymonds, Sasata, Paul August, Acdixon, the list goes on. Of course, many of the Arbitrators are on that list, but to my mind, they definitely should not be on that list because they are on ArbCom. If people would have disputed the close but didn't because the closing editor was an Arbitrator, that sets a bad precedent, IMO. IIRC, Risker's closure of the first WP:BLPRFC specifically noted that she was closing it on her own "authority", not ArbCom's. NW (Talk) 16:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so sorry if I sounded differently. I didn't suggest ArbCom members because they are on ArbCom but rather meant that they are on ArbCom because they are trusted. I'm just happy if anyone you mentioned did it, although I would not ask PeterSymonds; I have the greatest respect for him but as a steward, he might be perceived as biased since the proposals transfer "power" from stewards to local crats. Regards So Why 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems somewhat odd that anyone would choose who will close an RFC. Are we to compile a list of applicants for the position of closer? Are we supposed to have an election to choose the closer? Is someone going to put a big note on the page stating that THOU SHALT NOT CLOSE THIS RFC UNLESS YOU ARE CHOSEN by the community to perform this action? The thought that an admin or an editor in good standing, who probably has an opinion regarding the verdict, is not going to have commented in the discussion for the purpose of being able to maintain an appearance of impartiality so that they can do the closing....? What do you do if I or someone else who isn't on your "list" just wanders by and closes it at some point? Do you revert the close because it was done by someone not on the list? How about we just let the process take care of itself and trust people to do the right thing and if something goes sideways just deal with it if necessary instead or trying to over-engineer the situation? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but surely, we need an RFC to determine who can be authorised to draw up such a a list of applicants? O_O Christ; I know where I am here, but, there is a limit to the need for bureaucracy, surely. Chzz ► 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm...I came back here to apologize for sarcasm in the above. But, in doing so, I actually looked. Are we talking about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts here? Which has 99 supports, and 1 oppose; the opposer having been blocked? And this is considered 'controversial'? Blimey. Chzz ► 19:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you misunderstood my question here. It's not about who is "allowed" to close them. Anyone in good standing who did not participate in them can do so (as I said above), so there is no need for such "doomsday" scenarios. But given the face that they were widely advertised, probably anyone interested has already seen them and commented on them and of those who didn't, I think many are wary to close such RfCs. Hence the question whether to ask someone from ArbCom to do it, since they are used to making difficult situations (and I don't think I can neutrally estimate whether the close would be difficult or not). That said, if either of you want to close them, I'd be fine with that. :-)

@Chzz: No, this is about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy. Regards So Why 19:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx; I'll have a look later. I'll close the one I mentioned now. Ta. Chzz ► 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the request here seems to have been misinterpreted, I have placed what I hope is a very neutrally worded request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closures requested for desysop-related RfCs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and apologies for any misunderstanding.

I closed Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts because, frankly, it was a no-brainer, SNOW, and if anyone objects to it being a few hours early, I shall scream.

WRT Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, amazingly enough, I have not participated, and could therefore close them. But, given the cautions above, I am slightly hesitant; perhaps I should not be. I'm happy to offer my services as a neutral 3rd party; I could assess consensus and close, if that would be helpful, but if some might be concerned by such tenacity, I would rather refrain. Opinion welcome, but if you'd prefer HWH Mr. Wales, I quite understand. Best, Chzz ► 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) No sarcasm this time, excepting a minor dig at Mr. Wales

As far as I'm concerned, any experienced uninvolved editor could close them. I started my posting to WP:AN before you volunteered to close the other one. The consensus is pretty obvious anyway, so I don't think there should be much controversy unless the close is something wacky. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Of course, I cannot predict how I might close something, before doing it; Non-authoritative: a cursory scan indicates that there is clear positive consensus, although there are some valid points in opposition to consider. It might take me time(day?) to close it, to consider the opinions expressed.

As this has just been posted on AN, I shall pause for some hours before imposing myself. I know a few hours isn't "fair" - but then again, no time is necessary, and I feel that a short hiatus gives at least some opportunity for my esteemed fellows to scream NO, NOT HER, HE IS A FOOL and so forth.

So, I'll give it an hour or so from now. -Your humble-ish Wikipedian, Chzz ► 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not disappeared, I may as well wait for 0:00 proper time (another 1¼ hours) Chzz ► 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, when dealing with sensitive community issues, going to the Arbs isn't a very good idea. Sure, I happen to have respect for most of them (but most certainly not all of them) as individual editors, but ArbCom itself is a rather contentious entity with not if not widespread, certainly a good number of, staunch detractors. There are plenty of other options for closing discussions, going to ArbCom should be a last resort. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing... [14] [15] Chzz ► 23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - be careful with that axe, Eugene. Chzz ► 01:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that you were right to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy the way you did, I think you have misunderstood what it was about. Mt king ^(edits) 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation may be colored by the fact that the close didn't declare no consensus for the proposal that you opposed (even though 80% of those commenting supported it). --RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that he not addressed each section, nor updated the pages that were "amended", and given the overwhelming support for the other proposals (none of which had more than 10 detractors) and the number of editors opposing expressing concerns over the wording (including myself), I do think it needs to be looked at (remember to become a crat needs ~85% support to be deemed a consensus). Mt king ^(edits) 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that an explicit statement saying "Motions 1, 2, and 3 passed. Motion 4 (both versions) did not achieve consensus." would have been nice, but I didn't wade though the mud to make the close, Chzz did. You therefore have two options. a) accept it and move on, or b) take it to the approrpiate review forum, where someone else will reach the same conclusion Chzz did, with slightly different wording, at which point you're back at a). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what is the "approrpiate review forum" as I can find no mention ? Mt king ^(edits) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As an impartial party, I assessed ALL the points made, to the very best of my ability; I tried my best. I felt 300-30(ish) was compellling; I did NOT discount the other RfC as trivia, and, indeed, how many RfC closures incorporate a "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" with our trust.. Can't please all the people all the time, of course; and I'm very open to criticism. I endaeavour to improve this project in any way I can, and judging such decisions is a part of that, which inevitably will cause disagreement from some parties. Chzz ► 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you understand what the second RfC was about ? from you answer it appears you might not have. The second one was about how they use it.Mt king ^(edits) 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Chzz ► 02:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz's close allows for "uncontroversial procedure" desysops. Self-requests certainly are not controversial. Neither are the after-a-year desysops, at least according to the recent RfC. Desysops at ArbCom's whim, while certainly something I would not consider uncontroverial, is at least fully backed by policy. Even desysoping an admin that goes on a mad blocking spree is not that controvertial, although as Chzz said "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" comes into play. See my above comment on your options. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my closure of the 2nd RfC [16], and thus leave it to others. Best, Chzz ► 04:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now re-closed by Crazynas (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) with 1-3 passing and 4 not passing. I made the necessary changes to the policy, hope no one minds. Regards So Why 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, to both of the above. I'm sorry I had to back out of it yesterday; some felt that my close needed more detail on each of the four (which I see has now happened) - I didn't have time to do that myself, or argue about it, after my closure was disputed - and didn't want to leave it hanging around. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A quality effort by all. The tricky close of Sec. 4 by HJ is particulary much appreciated but that takes nothing away from the work of Chzz and Crazynas. Pedro : Chat 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping

As an FYI, I've initiated a discussion concerning emergency desysopping at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Emergency desysopping (v3). –xeno^talk 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In particular, bureaucrat comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Question for bureaucrats, before this goes any further. –xeno^talk 13:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a 'crat be so kind as to

Close Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Slakr? It's been over a week. --Chris 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, although I wasn't aware it needed to be a Crat that did this. If a BAG member could write up a brief "how to do" for closing these noms and add it to WP:BUREAUCRAT, I'd be grateful, as I kind of made it up as I was going along. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant templates are shown in the table at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures, but there could perhaps bit a bit more explanation there... –xeno^talk 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's barely mentions BAG at all. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a section to the page, although I might have missed something. --Chris 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tweaked somewhat (doesn't really need a separate section). –xeno^talk 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats (August 2011)

Resolved

– Permissions removed in accordance with inactivity procedure.

Bureaucrats are now subject to the removal of permissions for complete inactivity (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive accounts).

Redux (talk · contribs · rights · renames) (notification)

TUF-KAT (talk · contribs · rights · renames) (notification)

The above two bureaucrats were notified one month ago, several days ago, and about twelve hours ago, that their permissions may be subject to removal.

The next step is for a someone to post a note to m:SRP requesting the removal of the userrights. Similar to the guidance at Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators, I would suggest this be done by an en.wiki bureaucrat (in their capacity as a bureaucrat). –xeno^talk 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, there was a slight disagreement as to whether another month's grace should be provided following the formal closing of the policy: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts#Implementation. –xeno^talk 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- You notified them a month ago; I think that they've already been given that grace period, in a way. I'll wait a bit for any dissent here, but otherwise I think we should go ahead and file the requests. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Filed: [17] Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    - And fulfilled. I've updated WP:BUR. –xeno^talk 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      - And I've updated {{BcratTimeline}}. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        Thanks. Would you mind adding the post-Xeno crats? And maybe adding a "Last updated:" note somewhere... –xeno^talk 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        Done by Tyrol5. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
        Thanks, both. –xeno^talk 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- My only concern was that I thought the 30 days shouldn't start until there was actually a policy in place, and I was therefore accused of all sorts of bizarre motivations because of that. I'm still not sure why as I don't think my suggestion was way off base or anything. However, I'm fine with this since they have had the notification in the time frame mentioned within the new policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Oops, sorry, I'd have waited if you posted sooner. :-( Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Oh, no worries. I'm fine with it being done as it was. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sulutil issues

Is anyone else having problems with the Sulutil (see here)? I keep getting all kinds of errors: timeouts, too many users connected, server errors (from all seven of the servers, even though they are all green and in OK status per the box on the left side of that page). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I noticed it a day or so ago. It has been getting progressively worse since then. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The relication lag on S3 has been high for the last few days. I checked the maillist and status (hasn't been update sinece last month) but didn't find anything, so I'm not sure who knows about this problem. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also been having issues. I left the operator a note at ru:. As an FYI Special:CentralAuth can spit out similar results - but only when the SUL is enabled (which strikes me as a bit of a bug, but I could be wrong). –xeno^talk 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the toolserver is having issues. Not sure if it's related though as I'm not an expert. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since ACC rather depends on that tool as well, I've developed a (admittedly very slow) substitute tool. It's located at tools:~earwig/fakeSULutil.php (thanks to User:The Earwig for hosting, apparently my toolserver account is crap). It'll pull account information for wikis with over 125,000 articles, and provide English-language links to CentralAuth on each of them. I'm assuming that any really major conflicts will involve at least one of those wikis, but really that limitation is to make the tool take less than a few minutes to run. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a new version of the tool that is a couple orders of magnitude faster available at tools:~hersfold/newfakeSULutil.php - as mentioned above, though, my account has database access issues, so while it's set to check all wikis instead of only big ones, it is only pulling information from 19 wikis at the moment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's now working much better, accessing all clusters as it's supposed to. It's still sometimes slow, but I blame that on the TS. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your new tool works great, Hersfold. Thank you so much. To answer my "who knows" question above, River was notified of the problem a few days ago. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we want to add it to the {{renameuser2}} template? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Added it to {{user23}} [18]~~, but the original SULutil seems to be working for me today~~. –xeno^talk 14:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) spoke too soon maybe

Discussion concerning a bureaucrat bot to handle the procedural removal of inactive administrators

Interested parties are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Cratbot for desysopping inactive admins? Discussion for possible idea, not actual request. –xeno^talk 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysop implementation

Based on the closing of the RfCs (after any necessary settling of questions about the close), I believe the following specific things need to be done to implement the change:

Someone should file a Bugzilla request to change the bureaucrat permissions, linking to the closed discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag.
Once the permission is enabled, a posting should be made to meta:Stewards' noticeboard to let the stewards know this has been done. (Note: This should only be done once the permission is actually active, because the stewards are likely to begin referring desysop requests here once they are notified.) [19]
~~Wikipedia:Bureaucrats should be edited to add the policies approved in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy.~~
~~Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators and Wikipedia:Administrators#Voluntary removal should be edited for consistency with the change to the bureaucrat policy.~~
~~A request should be made to the Arbitration Committee to update Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions for consistency with the change to the bureaucrat policy.~~
~~meta:Bureaucrat#Removing access should be updated to include en-wiki.~~
~~User:Rd232 should be the first admin desysopped locally per his prior request above.~~
~~Crats should begin desysopping every admin they don't like in a mad orgy of permission removal.~~
I think that's everything, but feel free to add or redact as appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
1. mediazilla:30250 Chzz ► 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
T20390 actually, since it was previously requested in 2009. Regards So Why 08:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Amend the notice at the top of this page~~ --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Update {{User access levels}} and {{User access level changes}}.~~ Already done, just noting it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

My only additional step might be talk pages notices to the existing crats once the new change is switched on. Just an extra "BE CAREFUL" for crats who may not be watching/reading this page and see they have a new button to click. MBisanz ^talk 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:18390 has been fulfilled. –xeno^talk 14:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right to Vanish

[redacted request]

Understood. I will carry out the rename shortly. If you decide you would like to return, please email us at wikien-bureaucrats

ists.wikimedia.org so that your old account may be restored. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on this comment, should we perhaps rename Wikipedia:Right to vanish to Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing since it really isn't a right. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It is – or if it isn't, it certainly should be – a right. All users should have the ability to leave whenever they wish, so long as they don't make a habit of it. How can we force users to stay on the project? Juliancolton (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing as per the guideline current content and per what appears to be current consensus in regard to the guideline. that its not a right but a privilege. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ability to leave, of course. User talk page deleted, maybe. But in what way does having one's account renamed to gibberish help with leaving? I've never understood that. Amalthea 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that it makes it harder for outsiders to find and track your contribs. If they remember you as User:X, and suddenly you're the random User:VanishedUser765bnt, it's not so memorable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so, but the particular guideline is all a bit instruction-creepy. If an user with an unblotted copybook wants to skedaddle, the obvious thing for them to do is simply ask to be renamed, per policy, to User:βζ (beta zeta) or User:C12H22O11 (sucrose) or User:Green12345 or similar, then abandon the account. If they want to come back at some later stage, they can, per Cleanstart, also policy, pretty much without any strings attached. Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the instruction creep. As I see it we need a rethink of both Right to Vanish and Clean Start, making them more streamlined, so we make them easier to do and to understand. But doing that's not as easy as it sounds. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename to a random id also means your contribution history is not obviously reached by following your old signatures or old offsite links. Not impossible to find for the savvy, but not obvious. As to those creepy instructions, the new name is an improvement, but any attempt at discussing changes to the guideline content seems to just dredge up old dramas. --RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion started here recently, but petered out. Here is the problem with the coherence of Right to vanish and Clean Start:

Anyone can leave by stopping editing and having their user subpages deleted on request. (In reality, lots of people have their user talk pages deleted too, though the policies say not to.)
Anyone can have their contribs moved to a new name—and user pages deleted—then continue editing from that account.
Under Clean Start, anyone can stop editing, ask for their user subpages to be deleted, and return with a new account, though they are asked to avoid old haunts and interactions.
If you first ask for your contribs to be moved to a new name, wait a bit, then invoke Clean Start, you are effectively "vanishing," but you're allowed to return with a new account because you did it under the Clean Start banner, not the RtV one.
Under RtV, anyone can stop editing, have their account name changed to something random and hard to remember (Vanished User 4500xyz), and have user subpages deleted. They may also ask for dispute-resolution pages involving them to be deleted or blanked. Under RtV you're supposed not to return, but in reality people do. And in reality people have their user talk pages deleted as well.
Under what someone called "Special RtV," all of the above under 5 apply, but you're also allowed to return with a new account (if there has been serious harassment or similar), and you're meant to avoid old haunts, etc, as with Clean Start.

It's hard to see how to streamline all this, bearing in mind that policy has to be descriptive, as well as prescriptive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've drafted up a proposal for a complete re-hash of the clean start and RTV concepts at User:Hersfold/Leaving Wikipedia. This proposal encompasses retirement (the simple "bye bye" option that doesn't involve anything else), clean start (more or less as it currently is, but a bit more formalized to prevent abuse, as well as clearly defining what "good standing" means), and the privilege to vanish, also more formalized and changed so that is may only be used to escape demonstrable harassment. Some of the changes may be a little extreme. I'd greatly appreciate reviews from users around this area before opening this to wider community discussion; having a more solid draft at that point would be best. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on your proposal should continue here in order to keep everything together. I've made a comment there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion should really be held at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing, if changes to that guideline are being proposed. Will Beback talk 21:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And it certainly will, once I have a more concrete draft together. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, I've updated the guidance to direct requests of this nature to the mailing list or WP:CHUS [20]. –xeno^talk 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

BAG nom closure required

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Hersfold.

On the subject, perhaps {{cratstats}} should include open or expired BAG nominations? –xeno^talk 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Done and yes, adding it to {{cratstats}} would be useful. -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll drop a note for X! (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 17:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional opinions sought at WP:USURP

Resolved

– Thank you.

There are presently two requests that could use further opinions:

Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames

I have started a RFC on a policy related to bureaucrat tasks at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames and would request that interested users give their feedback. Regards So Why 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring admin privileges

I'd like my admin privileges restored, which were removed due to inactivity. While I don't have a specific date that I intend to return to fulfill some admin duties, I'd like to have the option open. My account is secure with a high-level password, I don't have any infractions or other things that'd reflect negatively on my past, and at one point I was a very active editor here.

Thanks guys. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Two minute turnaround. Can't ask for a quicker response than that. Thanks Hersfold. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship threshold RfC

An RfC to determine the threshold for successful Requests for bureaucratship is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. All of the community is invited to comment. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Successful administrator recall

Resolved

Hi 'crats, per User talk:La goutte de pluie#Recall - second request and Meta:Steward requests, please remove administrator access from La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (apparently Stewards at meta are no longer willing to do so even if approached there, since it can be done here). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I may be missing something but it appears that La goute de pluie removed herself from the category of administrators open to recall before this was actioned. Has she accepted that her recall criteria was met and that she should relinquish her admin status? WJBscribe (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This was a self-request made at meta. I suppose it's arguable whether we should wait for a request to be made by the user _here_ before actioning it, but I think the recall issue is a bit of a red herring. –xeno^talk 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I was indeed missing something - the fact that she made the request on meta herself. Not need to wait for a local requests, which would be rather bureaucratic. WJBscribe (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Request by LC

Closing without prejudice to reopen. User has not edited here for over 9 years, makes 4 edits and disappears for two days. The hub of the question rests upon, is LC really LC? Can s/he prove his/her identity? We've already had several 'crats indicate that if LC can prove his/her identity that they would restore the bit. Whether that is the right move is debatable, but I don't see anybody calling an RFC against a crat for doing so as it follows the spirit of the original RfC. Whether that needs to be revistied is a legitimate question, but not one for this page or this case. The crux of the issue rests upon whether or not LC can prove his/her identity---which after a 9 year absense seems impossible. If LC wants the bit, then LC needs to somehow validate LC's identity. But this is more dhrama than needed for somebody who hasn't followed up on their initial request and frankly doesn't really appear to have a need for the tools..---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please reinstate my admin, too, which was removed due to inactivity. Thanks. LC (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(Added subheading request to make sure this new request is noticed.) I see that this account has not edited since 2002. I would be very glad to have back as a contributor the editor who created all the articles listed on your userpage, but I think that this request will require substantial scrutiny from the bureaucrat team. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't find your initial RfA. Please point me to it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RfAs prior to mid 2003 can't be located on-wiki, so that doesn't mean anything (it's before my time, but I think I read that the first couple of what we now call RfAs were just Jimbo appointments, and after that there was a mailing list where they were discussed for awhile). You might check whether LC was in the group who were recently deadminned under the inactivity policy. For what it's worth, I see LC's name on this list, but no relevant entry in his or her user rights log, so the situation is a bit confusing, although other reasons for closely scrutinizing this request are probably apparent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

At a guess, LC was probably one of those granted sysop access by Jimbo on 26 March 2002. WJBscribe (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I dropped Jimmy a courtesy note, he replied thusly. –xeno^talk 16:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he was probably made an admin between June 23 and July 2, 2002, by request to Jimmy.[21] This timeframe seems to be confirmed by the old admin log entries beginning July 2002. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good eye. –xeno^talk 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

LC was desysoped by stewards in the first (false-start) phase of the inactivity procedure. –xeno^talk 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

LC is listed at User:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002)#Unknown sysopping date (ordered by arrival date). I believe this request should await for comments from at least several more bureaucrats prior to being processed. In the meantime - LC, is there anyone still active that might be able to confirm your identity? –xeno^talk 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

LC is also listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive1. When did admin action logs start? [22] There is a dewiki 'LC' who has been continually active since August 2004. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

LC had actions recorded in the old log pages that were used before Special:Log (e.g. "On 2002-07-04 15:04:29, LC permanently deleted page Sock"). –xeno^talk 13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Flagged as "On hold". –xeno^talk 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Awaiting response to my query at User talk:LC. –xeno^talk 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if identity is confirmed...

Honestly, I'm rather uncomfortable restoring the sysop bit here. Nothing against you personally, LC, I just don't feel comfortable. Here's why:

First and foremost, a lot has changed since 2002, and four edits are not enough to establish that LC is aware of all the myriad policy changes. (though in his defense, I can't readily think of anything that would serve as suitable evidence that he was up to speed; I just know that four edits don't cut it for me)
Admins should be picked by the community via RfA. I'm well aware that older administrators were grandfathered in, and that is (more or less) okay with me. But with such a lengthy inactivity time, I don't believe we need to (or should) honor that grandfather clause. Admins from 2002 that have been active since then? Sure, they've earned their position over time. Nearly nine years between edits? No, absolutely not.
Checking over the old logs, I can only see six administrative actions. I don't see any particular reason why you would need to be an administrator again, especially when combined with the length of your inactivity.
The fact that you popped right back after being desysopped is a little odd, but not as big a rationale in my opposing you getting reflagged as the three items above.

Sorry to seem negative, I just really don't think we should restore this bit. I'd prefer to see LC actually become active in the community again, and request the sysop bit via RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a bureaucrat, but I completely agree with EVula here. While LC was a good editor nine years ago, Wikipedia is extremely different now, especially the standards for administrators. This is why we need to tighten up the new policy - it's just no use desysopping if all it takes is a posting here for the bit to be returned. I definitely think that inactive admins who were granted the right before RFA was even created should not just be given back the bit. The policy needs to be altered in some way to make it more purposeful - i.e., returning users should become active in the community again, for about a month or two and then return here and resysopped after bureaucrat discussion. I'd go as far as saying any desysopped admin who never had an RFA should be required to have one if they want adminship. I really think 9 years is too long. I expect we have editors on here who weren't even born then, that's how ridiculous the idea is. I'd also suggest that if any admin is desysopped more than once under this new policy, they should lose the right to regain adminship unless it's through RFA. That would ensure they remain reasonably active without seeking adminship as a trophy. AD 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to the bureaucrats who to re-sysop and who not to. I don't think that was part of the deal in the recent changes. It's scope creep that should be discussed first. RxS (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While this is uncharted territory, administrators who willingly gave up their sysop bit have always come here for their re-sysoping, so the bureaucrats do indeed, and have for a while, make a choice as to whether or not to do so (though it's always just been a cursory check to see if they "willingly" gave up the bit under suspicious conditions or not). I can understand some hesitation for this new situation, but I don't see this as a particularly grievous scope creep. Bureaucrats are picked for their judgement; let's assume we are capable of making a decent call in the case of inactive editors. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's some truth to that, but in my experience there's been an expectation that it's a rubber stamp unless the admin gave it up to avoid sanctions etc. This seems different to me though. But please, this isn't a question of AGF or questioning judgement. It's just a matter of fact that processes creep here and its part of Wikipedia truth that scopes creep and creep....In this case we're asking for the group to make a subjective call on an editors ability to carry out admin duties. That's different from what they need to do as they close RFAs or what they currently do when somone asks to be resysop'd. RxS (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Creep happens, and I readily acknowledge that this is a bit of scope creep, but I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing in some situations; this is one of those where I think it's appropriate (personally, I think scope creep is innately neutral; it's just something that happens, and on a case-by-case basis it is either good or bad, but that's a philosophy discussion for another place/time). Obviously, as a unique situation, previous situations can only be of so much guidance to future ones. However, I can imagine times in RfAs that could be described as us making a "call on an editor's ability to carry out admin duties"; from my perspective as a bureaucrat, I don't see that much difference here (though I'll agree that the rubber stamp expectation is true), but I can totally see that it'd be perceived differently from the other, not-bureaucrat, side of things. So... yeah, both arguments are valid, and I'm rambling because I'm tried and I think I'll shut up now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Header added - tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 21:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with EVula et al. There were next to no policies nine years ago, and LC has a lot to read up on. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does anyone who's been inactive on Wikipedia for nine years need to be an administrator? Or perhaps even more to the point care? Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. The policy is quite clear: "The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural. If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." If Wikipedians wanted bureaucrats to exercise judgment in these cases on whether they feel the former admin will use the tools properly, then the Community would have specified that when they ratified the policy. NW (Talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a matter of interpretation as to what "returns" means. Returns to request a "right" they hadn't exercised for nine years? As opposed to returns to contributing to the project? Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps there's a matter of recognising that the current mechanism amounts to little more than tokenism. It is abundantly clear that some of the desysopped and resysopped accounts at best belong to people who feel entitled to the admin badge even though they have long ceased contributing, at worst are being used to see things such as deleted material. Now that the current "desysopping procedure" is in place, I would expect such accounts to make a contribution roughly once every twelve months to ensure that they stay below the radar. —WFC— 04:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If this request is granted then you're almost certainly right. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to quote and execute the policy explicitly and to the exact letter of the law, I'd like to point out that it says "they may be resysopped" (emphasis mine), and not "they will" or "they must". I prefer some flexibility to the policy, rather than blindly restore someone's bit nearly a decade after their last edit. There's just nothing about that that seems like a good idea, policy wording be damned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is even more extreme than the question I was asked when I stood for RfB (Question 7). If someone has not been around for almost a decade that makes 1) me uncertain that this is the same user 2) it almost impossible to verify it is the same person and 3) it almost certain that if this is the original editor, that s/he has no good understanding of the current polices, guidelines, and consensuses that make up the current wikipedia. I would counsel this user to spend some time editing and getting the feel for the current Wikipedia and to stand for a regular RfA, and my judgment is to counsel against the automatic resysop in this case. -- Avi (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. I also can understand where NW is coming from: there is no policy preventing return of the bit, and the current policy actually pretty much states that if there were no controversial reasons for the removal it should be returned. However, I think being completely gone for 9 years or so could almost be considered controversial in a way, since it indicates that the person is extremely unlikely to be versed in any current policies. I'm also concerned about how to determine if this is actually the LC from way back then. Anyone who remembers LC won't have strong memories so it will be very hard to make that determination. I think those concerns make this controversial enough to make me want to require some significant activity now before considering returning the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but 'me too'. I find it disturbing that someone who has not been around for so many years might be given the bit. I think IAR applies here (as does commonsense) and that we need to look at the policy behind this again, perhaps adding something about needing a new RfA if they haven't had the bit for a certain length of time. There doesn't seem to be any need to restore the bit nor does it look as though it would benefit Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this would be an IAR issue. As EVula correctly points out, the policy explicitly uses the word "may", not "have to", so not granting this request is completely within the policy. Regards So Why 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

<back from wikibreak> I, too, am unhappy granting the tools to this user. While our new policy states unambiguously that we should resysop, I can't think of a better example of IAR. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel very strongly that resysopping in these circumstances would be a deriliction of the trust the community has placed in us. I propose that unless another bureaucrat weighs in to disagree, we mark this as "not done", with apologies, in 24 hours. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Pray tell, Dweller, what's the purpose of having rules if you can blithely ignore them at any opportunity? What part of the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins suggests that you're guarding any kind of consensus? How is Wikipedia being improved by ignoring the rules here? Do you have any understanding of IAR at all? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think LC should be offered an opportunity to comment further before his/her request is declined. WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A few comments from me:

I don't think, absent further information from LC, that any bureaucrat can properly restore the bit. Wikipedia:Administrators#Voluntary removal: "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request at any time that their administrator status be restored by a bureaucrat, provided the bureaucrat is satisfied that the account's security has not been compromised in the meantime." (my emphasis - and, if I remember rightly, my addition to that page) I am not satisfied, and I doubt any other bureaucrat can be satisfied, in the circumstances that this account's security has not been compromised.
As noted above, bureaucrats have a discretion to restore administrator rights to users who resigned uncontroversially, they are not obliged to do so.
That said, I do think RxS is correct that this is scope creep. In a project with policies such as WP:IAR and where action are done (or in this case, not done) by volunteers (with no obligation to do anything) this kind of scope creep is inevitable. The important thing in my view is to make sure that any scope creep accords with consensus. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus that, regardless of the policy for returning adminsitrator rights, they should not be returned to this account based on the information currently available.

Further comment from LC would be welcome, especially if there is a way his identity can be confirmed (e.g. if he met other Wikipedians back in 2002 who remain active). WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets use common sense here - is he going to return? If not, why bother with the bit being added back. We are jumping the gun here to crtiticise the situation. The crat's are beign sensibly cautious and waiting for further input from LC (who has edited a couple of times yesterday and not responded). If he doesn't edit again, no harm lost, who cares about a lost bit (and if he does become properly active again later on it can be handed back per the policy). If he responds all of the above could well be moot... Of course I realise this is going to be the poster boy action for those who opposed the removal of sysop rights, and will argue heavily that the sysop bit is so important it should be handed back without delay. But lets at least see what LC says before we get into all that ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In context

It was unambiguous when these accounts were de-adminned that a request on this board would be sufficient to return the bits, barring cases of actual controversy. It is unimaginable to see the English language contorted in such a way to suggest that this request is "controversial." --MZMcBride (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins:

“

This is not to be considered binding, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools; if an inactive admin returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion, providing they left Wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute.

”

This was the text that people were supporting. Has anyone raised a legitimate dispute here? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we're acting on the last eight words of the text you quote. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? The last eight words quoted are "and that their identity is not in dispute." Again, what's the dispute here? Is there absolutely any evidence that this account belongs to a different person? The burden of proof is on you, not LC. LC is capable of logging in to his account. He's already proven to MediaWiki who he is. What's the dispute here? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response to my query at at User talk:LC before determining (apart from the other issues discussed in the above subthread) whether I can be reasonably satisfied "that the account has not been compromised since the permissions were relinquished". –xeno^talk 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Response or not, there doesn't appear to be anything to suggest a compromised account here. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary. I recall Lord Voldemort took a similarly lengthy break at some point. I could probably generate a whole list of similar accounts. What's the point of this charade? A complete annihilation of community governance? Nobody elected a small band of half-a-dozen users to rule like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering Lord Voldemort created his account after LC went inactive, a "similarly lengthy break" would be difficult to achieve.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The context was years-long breaks. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What 'evidence to the contrary' ? –xeno^talk 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Being able to successfully log in to the account, of course. In case anyone has forgotten, that's the only thing generally required around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I was hoping you had something more than their completely obvious ability to access the account... –xeno^talk 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet on any other day, with any other account, that ability would be completely sufficient. I think it would be rather disruptive if people started demanding that you or I or anyone else prove themselves without any justifiable reason. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If proving identity to MediaWiki was sufficient, nobody could ever be blocked as a compromised account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. It's sufficient in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of course. Unless you're now required to prove your identity every time you log in? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with MZMcBride's reading of the clear and obvious meaning of the policy as written and of the community discussions that led up to it—there's absolutely no question that the community did not intend that the 'crats should do anything except rubber stamp bit restoration upon receipt of a (properly-formed) request, and it would inappropriate in the extreme for them to attempt to retroactively rewrite and reinterpret that history. It is obvious that the provisions regarding 'resigning under a cloud' do not apply here.

Nevertheless, it is also fair to state that an editor returning after nine years of inactivity is a relatively remarkable and unusual occurrence, and it is both prudent and reasonable for the 'crats to be cautious before flipping the bit. This is a circumstance that is likely to only ever come up once or twice, and it's not harmful to take some care in handling it. The 'crats are correct to seek an ironclad confirmation of identity, and it would probably also make sense for them to investigate any alternate accounts that this editor may have operated in the meantime. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your second paragraph doesn't make much sense. An account could be compromised at 366 days or at twenty years. How is the length of inactivity (unusual as it is here) relevant? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades' analysis. I agree with the bureaucrats' decision to exercise caution in responding to this request. I suggest that further discussion should probably await a reply from LC, assuming one is ever received (and if none is ever received, that will speak for itself). And I think that MZMcBride should vastly tone down the unnecessary rhetoric, which would be misplaced even if his underlying position had merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I was opposed to an expansion of bureaucrat rights and abilities (and to an extent, removing inactive admin accounts) because of a situation exactly like this. A lot of people were very hesitant about removing rights from inactive accounts and their concerns were assuaged by a guarantee that a request for return from a user in good standing would be completely sufficient. This was made explicit. Trampling on this agreement at the first opportunity isn't acceptable. There will always be mitigating circumstances (in this case, an unusually long inactivity period), but it's the spirit of the policy and practices that's paramount.

Reading through some of the comments in this thread, I was horrified that only one or two people had mentioned the obvious point that there's no basis for withholding rights here. Further, many (if not all) of the bureaucrats commenting suggested that what they were doing was perfectly acceptable, given a whole host of bogus reasons (including wikilawyering over precise meaning of a few words). I stumbled upon this discussion and decided that it was worth my time to weigh in. I'm encouraged by some of the comments in this section, for what it's worth. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's discouraging that the bureaucrats are considering unilaterally expanding their powers on the basis of a single word. I'm not a huge fight the power guy, but I think in the case it's a pretty significant issue. Wikipedia runs by precedent and policy is as much descriptive as anything else. So the big issue here is not if an editor gets his bit back or not, but the fact that a small group of bureaucrats are changing policy without any discussion among the wider community. I don't doubt that we should be cautious about this, but community can monitor this editor. That's all that's needed here. LC was an admin for 9 years, there was plenty of time for hi-jinks if that was on his mind. RxS (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit much to say that bureaucrats are changing policy without any discussion given how lengthy this discussion is. If a consensus emerges that the bits should be restored in circumstances such as those we're currently faced with, I'd be willing to do it. Also, there are some things that community can't monitor, e.g. viewing of deleted edits. WJBscribe (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in two minds here: I am of the opinion on one hand that this is an exceptional case which must be treated very cautiously, and erring on the side of extreme caution is appropriate, including exhausting efforts to ensure that the request was made in good faith by the same user who held the account in 2002. I completely agree with the concerns about the vast change in policy since then, and the need for this user to still hold the tools. Yet a part of me says that if we return the tools, any severe misuse could be immediately dealt with by a summary/emergency desysop; any other misuse of the tools would easily be dealt with at ANI or RFC/U. So, all in all, I think that either way the decision goes, it would be a valid call. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a relatively extreme case of inactivity, far beyond what I expect most people participating in the recent RFC were considering, and certainly not something with prior precedent to rely on. The way I see it is this: If LC is sincerely interested in returning to the project, then the sensible thing for both their own benefit and the project's would be for them to edit for a few months without admin tools before requesting the bit back. If LC does not have a real interest in helping the project (if they are just reclaiming a badge, or worse), then returning the bit would be a negative. So I have a hard time seeing immediate restoration of LC's admin rights as a good idea. The only argument for it seems to be concern about bureaucrats' authority. If the only downside is a very incremental increase in crat powers -- essentially, that after some discussion they might deny immediate restoration of the bit to a former admin who has been on an unusually long multi-year wikibreak -- then I think LC should not get the bit back right now. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Count me in with RxS, TenofAllTrades and NW. Absolutely unambiguous scope creep, and a pretty ballsy one at that. In contrast to their traditional reticence to take on roles not explicitly granted them by the community, nearly all of the 'crats commenting above seem determined to arrogate for themselves a right of review that the policy does not envision. Delaying return of the bit until some identity confirmation is provided is one thing; refusing to return it because "so much has changed" is entirely outside the remit of this userright. Nathan^T 17:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As the policy states, the word may is pretty clear, and in exceptional cases like this one, bureaucrats are expected to use their best judgement on the matter. And their best judgement is that it's not a good idea. Why is there all this fuss about it? Bureaucrats should not feel forced to readmin any account that they are uncomfortable with regaining admin rights, even if it is policy. AD 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just demonstrates the depth to which Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have penetrated the global consciousness... Even lawyers try to avoid litigating the meaning of a single word in a rule, when volumes of discussion, debate and accompanying documentation make the intent of the policy clear - its a procedural removal that does not substantially change the status of the account, and returning the bit should be a routine checkbox affair... Not an opportunity to debate the merits of the requesting administrator. Nathan^T 17:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There remains, of course, the possibility that no bureaucrat will decline this request - but that no bureaucrat will grant it either. Volunteers cannot be compelled to take action. (For my part, I will not consider this request further until LC responds to my query.)

Complicating this situation is that LC was not desysopped in strict accordance with the inactivity policy, but during a rare lapse in due diligence by stewards (i.e. they were not duly notified prior to the rights being removed) - see here, here. –xeno^talk 17:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Points up a pretty serious loophole in the process, doesn't it? Its a two-part rule with crystal clear intentions; the bit is removed as a routine matter for inactivity, and returned as a routine matter for restored activity. If crats are happy to implement part one, but refuse to obey the policy in part two, then perhaps the policy itself needs to be re-evaluated. Nathan^T 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As noted, 'crats were not involved in part one of the present case. –xeno^talk 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it does need evaluating. At the moment, it serves no real purpose whatsoever if former admins can just ask for the bit back. There's no point in removing it if it's so simple for it to be returned. My suggestion would be for such former admins to participate in the community for a month or two to demonstrate they are up to date with various policies etc and then come and request and then there should be no problem at all, even for long term absentees such as LC. AD 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I should perhaps clarify that, for me, the issue is one of identity - not LC being possibly out of date with community norms. I'm not sure there's a valid basis to refuse to return tools on the later ground, which I think steps into evaluating whether someone should be an administrator. I don't think the community has authorised us to do this, though I recognise that no one has to do anything. For my part, if I can be satisfied that the person operating the LC account now and in 2002 are one and the same, I would be minded to restore their access. If user conduct issues were then to arise following restoration of LC's access, there are channels for dealing with those. WJBscribe (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, my concerns have nothing to do with 'crat policy. I think there is no way to tell if this was the same person as 9 years ago, and if it were, I would think that the project has changed so greatly that now that the bit was removed (for whatever reason) it is not prudent to return without becoming up-to-date on the current state of Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with Will and Avi, my concerns are rooted in the changes in security that have occurred since he went inactive. IIRC, passwords of that era could be blank or easily guessed. Since he hadn't edited since the checks were added to ensure not-easily guessed passwords, I just don't know how the system would respond to someone guessing a simple password. I'm wondering if LC ever contacted the e-mail lists back in 2001/2 and if that email address could be used to verify his identity. Besides that, and as much as I think it's a stupid policy, I see nothing in policy that would permit me to deny him a resysopping. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts echo those of WJBscribe, Avi, and MBisanz. If we can verify that the LC who made this request is the same one who was made an admin 9 years ago, I have no problem returning the bit. As has been pointed out, if there turn out to be abuse-of-power issues related to this account once the bit is restored, we can easily deal with that at that point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Both MBisanz& & Nihonjoe: Avi's position seems to be different than WJB's. –xeno^talk 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation

Just an observation but if LC had happily rocked up six months ago (so ...duh.... 8 and bit years inactive) and started deleting stuff in line with policy, blocking people in line with policy etc. etc. then no-one would hve batted an eye-lid. But woahhhh...... we stick in a new policy and now LC can't. I appreciate lateral thinking is not a strong point around here at times but honestly guys. Ask yourself if you'd have really requested a steward desysop if the account went suddenly active back in February. 86.147.233.108 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I question your assessment here; there are usually a lot of concerns about long-inactive admins suddenly returning and taking actions, and I believe that was one of the motivating factors for the RFC that led to the community's decision to desysop inactive admins. The policy that has recently developed is considerably more liberal than that on the majority of larger wikis. Risker (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All this discussion - a user pops up after nine years of inactivity - clearly considering the changes since then wouldn't have a clue what he would do with the tools to benefit the project - he only edits for seven minutes, he posts eleven words, a template and a signature....two days ago and hasn't even bothered to comment in regard to requests for comment here - sorry mate - ask the community for reconfirmation - we need to add to the guideline that users inactive for more that two/three years need to reconfirm via a WP:RFA. Please add to the guideline - After one year of inactivity your administrative privileges will be removed and after two years of inactivity you will be required to reconfirm via a WP:RFA. Also please note that Users "popping up" once a year to make a single edit to avoid removal of the admin right will be unable to refuse a recall request from a single user in good standing after over two years of such contributing inactivity. Off2riorob (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have grave doubts about this request. I've encountered several users from the UseModWiki days whose accounts were used by vandals, but in all of those cases, the accounts were simply created, rather than being compromised, since they weren't in the current Wikipedia database for one reason or another. I didn't find out about this thread until now because it wasn't placed in chronological order. However it seems that all that can be done has been done. Graham87 06:01, 24 August 2011 (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.

Identity verification after voluntary or procedural removal

Here's a question on identity verification, prompted by the LC case: After what time period should a returning admin need to prove their identity, and what forms of proof are acceptable? An e-mail after six months or a year? A hash committed identity after two years? Normally we look for evidence that an account is compromised, and if none exists we assume that it is not. We seemed to have turned that presumption on its head for this process. Nathan^T 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The LC case was not entirely without indications of potential account compromise. –xeno^talk 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I forget the exact date; I want to say 2005 or 2007, but at some point we started requiring accounts not to have blank, username identical, or otherwise easy passwords at a technical level. Without being dispositive, I would say that an account inactive prior to that date would not have a presumption of valid ownership. The owner would need to prove it via other means like same email address, continued ownership of another web property, or real life identity. MBisanz ^talk 17:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also recall hearing about the devs running a brute force attack on the passwords of all sysop accounts at some point in the last several years. –xeno^talk 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You remember correctly. It was after several admin accounts with weak passwords were compromised in 2007. See Brion's post to Wikitech-l at the time and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Admins desysopped: "Lead developer Brion VIBBER has run a password cracker on all administrator accounts and invalidated the weak passwords of several additional admin accounts. These admins will have to reset their passwords by e-mail before logging in again." WJBscribe (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What indications of a potential account compromise were there? RxS (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The technical data available was enough to raise an eyebrow. –xeno^talk 12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

←