Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 11:35:25 on May 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop

Hi all, I'm trying to get back into the swing of things after an almost 2 year break from Wikipedia, and so I'd like to be re-adminned (but not re-bureaucratted). I retired because life was getting too busy for me and I needed a break. Thanks in advance! (X! · talk)  · @814  ·  18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! Apparently there's a 24-hour wait now, but once that's up I'll re-flag you if no one beats me to it. 28bytes (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Good luck, X! Jared Preston (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with 28 that I know of nothing that would preclude resysopping (or re-cratting if he wanted it) after the 24 hour waiting period. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. Your return is most welcome. --Dweller (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, if I was ever tempted to go rogue with a repromotion, now's the time. :) Welcome back, man. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else: there are no issues with this one, and certainly many positives. Welcome back, X! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

24 hours are up, give him the bit back. Wikipedia is nothing without X!—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 18:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, 23 more minutes. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You have my official permission, as GodKing-in-waiting of Wikipedia, to resysop 21 minutes early. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, wow! X! is back. That's good news. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly 24 hours to the minute. Impressive. (X! · talk)  · @903  ·  20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional unrelated comment: I made this resysop request exactly 6 years (to the day) after I joined Wikipedia. Interesting. (X! · talk)  · @910  ·  20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

We created our accounts ten days apart? That's a crazy happenstance. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2006 was a very popular time for signing up, apparently. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Three eventually-to-become bureaucrats created accounts within a twelve day period? Wow. Is there a chart out there somewhere that shows a month-by-month count of number of accounts created? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was a March 2K6 Wikibaby (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You should refer to this, Useight. bibliomaniac15 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed from that is that the youngest crat account is from 2007. Old men's club! KTC (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that "Sort by creation date" gives January 2002, June 2002, October 2002, February 2002, November 2002, February 2002... 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2002 was a really weird year. I remember the Smarch weather was especially bad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a MediaWiki bug dealing with really old accounts. If you look at this, all the early accounts are out of order. Legoktm (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Before late 2005, there was no log entry made when a user registered, so there was no date of registration. After 2005, all accounts have a log entry for their registration. For people who registered pre-September 7, 2005, the software estimates a registration date from the date of their first edit. But, special:listuser sorts based on User ID, which is and always has been assigned at the time of registration. For example, my User ID means I registered in mid-2004, but I didn't make my first edit until mid-2005, which is the date listuser assigns as my registration date. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the date of the first edit for many early users is wildly inaccurate due to a bug mentioned in the second-last paragraph of the documentation on moving over a redirect. Graham87 16:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The most accurate method of estimating a user's creation date before 2005 is to look at the users table on toolserver. At some point, the creation dates got filled with the first edit fields for the pre 2005/09/07 users, so you can easily look at the users table on toolserver sorted by user_id and find the closest user after you with the earlier creation date and assume your account was created before them. That is how I know that for example my account is from autumn 2003, tho I can't remember the month. This does not work well for the first X users (where X is a relatively small number that I have long forgotten) because their user_id is not based on account creation but it's 100% random. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Those users are probably the first handful of users whose accounts were created after the Phase II software was installed. Dates of edits from January/February 2002 (and occasionally up to July of that year) are incredibly flaky, so that's why the creation dates from that period could seem random. If user ID numbers were in fact assigned randomly at any time, that field wouldn't have been a very good primary key at all. Graham87 15:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They weren't assigned at random. My memory again fails me, I recall discussing the matter a few years ago with the user that has userid #1, I think there's was some db failure/corruption that forced a restore with some issue, or it happened in a migration or they weren't using userids as primary key to being with. I really can't recall the details but I'm pretty sure that at one point all of the first say, 1000 users got randomly assigned userids, which is why neither Jimbo nor Larry is user no 1 / 2. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1 is User:Damian Yerrick. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Looked into the archives, I did point out to him that he was #1 but I guess the discussion was with somebody else, *shrugs* it's been too long I guess, I'm going gaga xD Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin

Life has moved forward and my commitments have changed. I would like the admin tool returned please. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'm not aware of any circumstances that would prevent me actioning this request. However, it has become standard practice for bureaucrats to wait 24 hours to make sure that no one has something to bring to our attention that we are not aware of, or have overlooked. Please bear with us. WJBscribe (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, nothing to be concerned about here. As we 'crats are now less trusted members of the community than we were, we now have to wait. While I'm guessing it's not a big deal for you, I'm still sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. --Dweller (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"less trusted members of the community"? .. I apparently missed a HUGE discussion. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect TRM is referencing the recent Polarscribe RFAR where the Arbcom showed themselves willing, and even eager, to second-guess the crats when they think we made an erroneous decision. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the same thing. And yes, it was a very huge discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There certainly was no comment that Buro's were "less trusted" - the community merely put into law what was originally in-practice because of kerfluffle when someone didn't follow that practice. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think it was pretty clear the community said we don't trust you enough to make the call so we are going to mandate it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Stating that we want the opportunity to express any reservation or history that the crats might not been aware of doesn't mean we don't trust them. KTC (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Stating that you don't trust them to do that check for themselves certainly does say that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I for one welcome input on these matters. Not everything is always as it seems. Yes, it looks as if nothing bad would have happened had I returned Viridae's tools immediately. But the weight has resulted in nothing bad happening either. It's good to take a bit of time to make sure we get these things right. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 'crats are not as trustworthy as they used to be, hence the policy change that 24 hours should elapse before a re-sysop. This has devalued the position of 'crat, for better or for worse. That's the kind of thing I was referring to. Not much left for 'crats to do these days, renames can be basically automated, re-sysops are subject to community panic, sysops are few and far between.... Last 'crat out turn the lights out please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. TRM, you and I became bureaucrats at around the same time, and I for one I don't think our role (or how the community regards us) has changed much. The 24 hr rule is designed to make sure we have all the information we should and that nothing has been overlooked - it's common sense. Once that time has elapsed, any of us can make the decision, there's not requirement of a group decision between us etc. We have to operate within boundaries, and if we get it wrong there will be consequences. Like for anyone else. I really don't think anything has changed. Bureaucrats have a some additional rights, which we exercise within defined parameters. Sorry you're disillusioned with how things are, but I don't really see any significant change in how the community regards bureaucrats. WJBscribe (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No hurry. Thanks. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no issues here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - a few minutes early, because I messed up on UTC. Please excuse me. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 08:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy changes regarding Bureaucrats

The following changes have been made to the policy according to the community:

1. De-crated editors must wait 24 hours upon requesting the bit back to allow the community to assess if the removal of the tools was under the cloud. This change will take effect immediately.
2. If a former crat has been inactive, that is absolutely no edits or logged actions, for 3 total years regardless of how or when the bit was removed they are required to go through a mandatory RfB. This change will take effect February 1, 2013. Former crats should be notified of this change before policy takes effect.

Appropriate changes to the policy pages should be made to reflect this change.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to restore admin tools

Hi, I was told to post this request here before time expires due to my inactivity. Thank you for considering, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see no controversial circumstances but you have been inactive for more than 3 years. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29. Fellow crats, has this new policy come into effect yet? I can't see any mention of a wait period there or on the policy page (Wikipedia:ADMIN#Lengthy_inactivity) --Dweller (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC) And by the way, you are definitely welcomed back! Good to have you. --Dweller (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It was decided by the crats that the 3 year takes effect New Year's Day to allow those who have been inactive for more than 3 years to request the tools back as they left the project thinking, they would always have the ability to request it back.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 21:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Smashing. So, I have no objections to PeaceNT being resysopped after 24 hours from the time of the request. --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. Looking forward to 2013 already. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. He was one of the admins I notified of the short grandfathered period and he made the request before that period expired. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone --PeaceNT (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Dissolution of the English-language Wikipedia Bureaucrat position

I have a simple question. Is the position of 'crat here needed any more? We do a couple of things:

• Promote/decline RFAs.
• Name changes.
• Other rights changes.

In response:

• We have few RFAs, very few (perhaps a handful a year) that hit the "dubious zone" of around 70 to 80%. Besides the right to flip the flag, these could almost always be handled by admins. The dubious zone could be sorted by admins/Arbcom.
• Name changes are almost invariably a sanity check. Already we have clerks and bots doing 99% of the work. To be a 'crat to decide on most of these decisions seems unnecessary. Admins could easily say "yes" or "no" to these requests where required.
• Resysops etc, as noted above, has been declared by the community as something 'crats cannot be trusted with, now having to wait 24 hours before allowing their decisions to be enacted.

It strikes me now that we could fulfil all 'crat functions via admins and Arbcom where required. I would be grateful to hear from someone who felt that a 'crat decision in the past twelve months actually meant something outside of that which would be easily actionable by an admin, by Arbcom or by community consensus. This is absolutely not to suggest that the 'crats who have worked their socks off in the last few years haven't done a good job, it's merely to suggest they could have been doing something better with their time since the position of English Wikipedian Bureaucrat is now really not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering that many RfBs have been closed as unsuccessful in the past, I would consider that the community believes that these three things above do require extra responsibility, meaning that the 'crat bit is needed. For example, with name changes. Despite the clerks and bots, the decision to be made by bureaucrats would still be required, for example if the bot or another person "got it wrong." Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think unsuccessful RfBs are usually down to ugly partisanship, an unbelievably high bar set in mythology rather than reality and a refusal to accept that the ability to change someone's name isn't really that big a deal. Especially when Arbcom or stewards can run roughshod over anything local 'crats do, and particularly in light of our local community deciding 'crats aren't capable of re-sysoping admins without allowing a 24-hour period of grace. The position of 'crat has been serious undermined. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have focussed primarily on name changes in your argument, it feels to me like you're making more of a point for the other bureaucrat abilties (name change and bot flagging) to be decoupled and tied to administrator. In my opinion, there is relatively little controversy to this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so name changing and bot flagging is easily admin work. My other focus is rights-changes, which has been modified lately by the community to make 'crats wait before resysopping. Please do note my initial proposal included promotions, name changes and rights, it wasn't just "focussed (sic) primarily on name changes"... There are also around four RFAs per month which could be handled by Arbcom. We don't need a 'crat for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is to deal with disputes, not for flagging admins/crats. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, Arbcom can decree that people are de-admined, de-crat'ed, whatever. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with some of their actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they can do so, but to my knowledge ArbCom has not ever decreed that a user be made an administrator if they have never undergone a successful RfA. There's a precedent there, and I don't think it's one that ArbCom would be happy to break. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But they could. It would happen twice a year. Arbcom are happy to run this place, they can deal with it I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Both focused and focussed are acceptable spellings in the OED. There is no incorrect spelling here! :-P --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) Speaking as someone who is thought (by some) to be prone to the occasional over-reaction, I have to wonder: isn't it possible that this is an over-reaction, TRM? Crats are by and large people we trust very much to do boring but important things (with the very, very occasional exciting but important thing) that would get all messed up if it was opened up to the whole admin crew, who have a record of ... (don't want to get blocked) ... a mixed level of competency. I assume this is a response to the recent imposition of 24 hour wait? All that is really saying is that it's possible something happened in the past that a Crat doesn't know about, so give it 24 hours so someone can mention it if they know about it. I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as an insult to the Crats, or an implication that we no longer need you. It's not a comment on your judgement, it's a comment on your lack of omniscience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your thoughts. This isn't something that's a snap from the 24-hour decision, it's just something I've been wondering about. Name changes are pretty much automated. RFA/RFBs, besides those close ones, are simple to finish. Otherwise, what else is there that the community or Arbcom couldn't do for themselves? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hardy Cross once said, in relation to structural engineering, "Strength is essential, but otherwise unimportant." I think Crats are the same way; your work is essential, but otherwise unimportant. If you let the admin horde try to rename people, I guarantee you someone is going to screw it up (quite possibly me). Much of it is grunt work, but there is a critical spark of judgement required before the final rename/sysop/flag button is pushed. We've chosen you lot to do that, because we trust that you're far less likely than one of us to screw it up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That would carry weight if the community hadn't just decided we ('crats) would screw up a resysop if we didn't wait 24 hours. We also have bots and clerks for renaming, so I'm asking what is it we actually provide that Arbcom or the community couldn't do without us? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But the 'crats recently did screw up a resysop by not waiting the 24 hours ... a period that had been agreed upon, but that one buro went outside of. I find this argument particularly WP:LAME - a couple of weeks ago, the community suggested a new role (to do with RFA clerks) that Bureaucrats are the ONLY possible level to perform, and you guys wimped out. You cannot turn down appropriate "work" one day, then whine and moan that there's no work to do anymore. Totally lame. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I declare your argument equally as lame, because many of us (including MBisanz, myself and bibliomaniac15) said that it was up to the community to decide and that we would happily go along with the role if the community wished us to do so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed my, similarly worded, opinion, which, <ahem> I believe was the first response, lol. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I sat there saying to myself "I think I forgot someone" when I wrote that. Sorry! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the community didn't decide you would screw up a resysop if you didn't wait 24 hours; they decided that you might screw up a resysop by not knowing something important, and not knowing that you don't know. Please don't take offense because the community implied you aren't all-knowing and 100% perfect; the community (by a much larger margin) previously decided you folks were trustworthy enough to actually do the button pushing. (And FWIW, a Crat has to be trusted by 85%, an Arb only by 50% :) ) And no, we don't have clerks and bots for renaming, we have clerks and bots who help you to rename. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam, I think you make the point well and clearly. No one has said anything about bureaucrats in possession of all the facts making bad decisions; returning rights remains a discretionary area in respect of which bureaucrats can - and do - legitimately differ from time to time. The concern that was expressed (and had historically been expressed, including by bureaucrats) was that we might get it wrong if we weren't in possession of all the facts. That seems a very different issue to the suggestion that there is somehow community confidence in bureaucrats has lowered. WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've proposed policy changes that would have expanded the Crat's role (WP:RAS) and still want it expanded. I think having a position with such a high standard to perform the existing tasks is a good thing, personally. I would also note that from my experience, Bureaucrats enjoy the highest approval rating and trust by regular editors around here, higher than Arbs or Admin. That would tell me that the average editor wants Bureaucrats here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the issue of the 24-hour wait period, as contentious as TRM appears to find it, it rather a red herring in relation to the actual discussion he's asking us to have: whether the position of crat is useful anymore. My personal view is that the crats have become victims (so to speak) of their own competence - we asked for people who were steady, uncontroversial, and could make consistent decisions. We got them. In fact, we got people who were so competent at that what they do that they've managed to do something almost unthinkable in the rest of our community processes: they've standardized things in their domain almost down to a T, with numerical cutoffs for RFAs, exacting specifications for what name changes are workable, and defined guidelines for when and whom they re/desysop. These processes reliably work according to these standardized guidelines, because the crats are so good at being consistent in using them.

  The problem, if there can be said to be one, then, is that these processes work so well, so reliably, that now that they're standardized, you don't need any particular use of judgment to carry them out. You don't need to be that super-consistent crat to spin the wheel; it's already spinning on its own and could continue to be spun by the occasional clerk or admin push when needed. In that sense, I think the position of crat has outlived its usefulness in these areas.

  Does that mean the crats should be eliminated? I'm not entirely sure. There will always be tasks on the project for people who are highly consistent, uncontroversial, competent, and trusted by the community beyond the admin or even arb level. The thing is just that the tasks that need that mindset now aren't the ones we entrusted to crats back in the day. 99% of RFAs don't need crat-level unimpeachable judgment. 99% of name changes and bot flaggings don't, either. But other things do - things like closing of contentious RfCs, like the evaluation of whether a cloud exists around a particular desysoppped admin, like the maintaining of decorum in areas where issues are hot and cool heads are needed. If we're going to talk about the future of the crat position, I would prefer to reshuffle things and give crats responsibilities that they're actually suited for, rather than keeping them around just to continue doing the same paper-shuffling that nearly anyone could do. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• A few thoughts from a non-'crat:
  • A 24-hour waiting period for some decisions still doesn't guarantee that the right decision will be made. On ArbCom, sometimes we take 24 days (and sometimes it feels like 24 weeks) to make some decisions and we may not get them all right. A 24-hour waiting period for resysopping has pros and cons—I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other—but I certainly don't think that any bureaucrat should take the new policy personally.
  • At one point the developers (i.e. the Foundation employees who actually program and operate the software and the servers) were strongly against allowing any administrator to do renames, because renames utilized a lot of system resources and an ill-thought rename could noticeably affect the technical performance (e.g. time it takes for edits to save) of the entire Wikimedia server system. I'm not sure if that's still the case (MBisanz is one who would probably know).
  • I don't know whether bureaucrats play an actual policy role, as opposed to a purely technical one, in bot-flagging. It's conceivable that allowing any administrator to flag a bot (with BAG approval) might make sense at this point, in the same way that any administrator can now create a rollbacker or a reviewer. On the other hand, this might equally be a solution instead of a problem.
  • As for closing contentious RfAs, I agree that there are relatively few of them these days; if we were designing the system from scratch, we might not create a special class of administrators to close them. After all, there are far more contentious DRVs (for example) than RFAs, but while a few administrators may choose to specialize in closing DRVs, they do so more-or-less by self-appointment. Would it be possible for RfAs to be closed in this fashion? I suppose it would, but I also suppose that the consequences of a disputed consensus on an RfA that could be closed by any of a few hundred people would be more than usually nasty.
  • Speaking only for myself and not for my fellow arbitrators (though I have the suspicion most would agree with me), I don't feel that the criteria the community used in electing me as an arbitrator reflect that I'd have been equally entrusted to close RfAs. The tasks and the way one goes about deciding an arbitration case or a ban appeal, and how one would assess consensus at RfA, are very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW - I very much agree with what Floq, Dennis, and many others have said above. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't feel there was anything wrong with expecting the crats to wait 24 hours to resysop people. My problem was and remains that Arbcom feels it is acceptable to intervene in a resysop that has followed the defined procedures. Statements such as "As far as I can see, this was a error to resysop, and should be able to be undone quickly by us." and "I would prefer us to resolve by motion that the bureaucrats should make a decision en banc concerning the return of rights to FCYTravis. I would have the bureaucrats return to us with a decision, and have us implement that decision." The Arbs didn't indicate that Nihonjoe acted corruptly or failed to follow policy; they merely said that they wanted a different outcome, so they believed they should overrule him. It would be very similar to an admin undeleting an article because he disagreed with another admin's AFD close or Arbcom ordering an article deleted because it thought it failed retention criteria or a Steward deciding to grant someone Checkuser because it thought Arbcom made a mistake in not appointing them. I was and remain strongly dissatisfied with Arbcom's belief that it is the righter of all wrongs and the final determiner of all processes.

As to the present proposal, I would disagree with devolution of RFA closure and renames to admins because of the controversy of RFA and the performance risks of renames. Bots, while formally under crat oversight, have generally been delegated to the BAG. There are still some obscure performance issues with giving out bot accounts to anyone, so I would want further comment from people who have a better appreciation of those risks before I opined on that aspect. As I've said before, I wouldn't mind transferring RFA and renames to the Stewards at Meta. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the Arb case, that is in part my fault for filing. Keep in mind, I had never filed at Arb and was perhaps not knowing what to expect. I was 6 or 7 months into the bit and had avoided Arb before then. My intentions were honorable and not against any particular Crat, but I probably should have sought other solution first. In my defense, I saw a genuine risk to resysoping and felt that timeliness was important, but if I had to do over again, I would have done it differently. I am human, I err, and I will admit when I do. I do support the 24 hour waiting period, as a way for us to help the Crats, not because I question their ability or faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz (at least my understanding of what he was saying), above, in thinking Arbcom (at least some of them, anyway) overstepped its bounds by interfering in a by-the-letter resysop which completely followed policy (to the letter, just for double emphasis). Yes, some people disagreed with the decision, but he left because he was mad, not because he was under imminent threat of being desysopped. The case should never have been accepted in the first place. I place no fault in Dennis Brown, however, as he was just following what he perceived to be the proper steps. Polarscribe was also a bit slow to respond to people's concerns (however unfounded they may have been, given that the only examples of "misuse" of the admin bits were shaky at best). I can understand he reticence, though, especially given how nasty some people can be even when shown blatant proof that their perception is completely false (I have first hand experience with that). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note regarding renaming: the most important reason (IMO) that it is restricted to a tiny number of people vetted by the community is not because it's particularly mentally taxing, but because serious, difficult to repair damage can be done if someone with nefarious intent gets ahold of that right – much more damage than the block or delete tool. (I'll avoid the temptation to explain why.) That's not to say it necessarily has to be a bureaucrat task, but I think we would be wise to be wary of distributing that particular button to a broader group of users. As to the larger point of the need for the 'crat role itself, as is often the case I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Floquenbeam on all points. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of the points mentioned above (as far as not supporting this idea), though my primary reason is somewhat different from those mentioned. Frankly, I feel like dumping bureaucrat duties onto the administrators is the absolute wrong direction, based on the fact that I feel RfA has stagnated due to adminship not longer being "no big deal"; I would rather see a reduction of duties for administrators, rather than an increase, in the hope that people will become a bit more lenient in their support of administrators. (this goes hand-in-hand with a desire for adminship to be more easily removed, in the face of not-quite-bad-enough-for-ArbCom behavior, but I also realize that hell will freeze over multiple times before that happens)
  I do agree that, right now, being a bureaucrat is a fairly easy job (certainly disproportionately so, considering what a nightmare RfBs are), but I think dissolving the position and parceling out the responsibilities is the wrong direction. (and I doubt ArbCom wants to start dealing with vanishing requests, which most certainly would not be the sort of thing opened up to the entire admin corps) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand the notion of 'crats not having enough to do. They can perform Admin. duties, edit articles, write bots, look after the kids, watch football or spend some time in the garden (yard). They are not tied to a laptop waiting for a 'crat. action to pop up. More on topic, the prospect of some marginal RFAs being closed by any passing Admin. is, by itself, sufficient to make this proposal unsupportable. Leaky Caldron 09:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of RfA judging being handed to ArbCom!! At the very least, if you must do this, plan it so that it rolls out in 2 years time so that the arbitrators we've just elected to be arbitrators can be arbitrators, and at the next ArbCom election we'll judge the candidates on their abilities to be arbitrators and bureaucrats. Closing RFAs requires the highest level of care to determining consensus, being an arbitrator does not. - filelakeshoe 12:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• In short, no to dissolution. I wanted to offer a clever response to the RfA numbers observation, observing that 95% of Physician decisions could be made by a layman, it's the 5% that justify the earnings, but Floquenbeam's strength allegory is more powerful, so whichever works.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Floquenbeam, EVula, and NewyorkBrad. Giving more responsiblity to administrators will make it yet more difficult to pass an RFA, and we've already gone round and round in circles talking about that problem. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the 24-hour wait to re-sysop, but I don't see how that requirement indicates a lowered trust in bureaucrats. We have to wait seven days for an RFA to run its course instead of just adding the bit when the RFA appears to be heading in that direction. This doesn't seem any different to me. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose dissolution. I'd much rather see bureaucrats take control of a defined process of review of individuals exercise of administrative functions, and thereby become the main guardians of deadministration, in addition to RfA. It regrettable that more bureaucrats are not more active in policy debate along these lines. Arb com should be a port of last recourse, for complex matters, matters for which there is no defined process. I like the 24 hour wait for a readmin decision because I think these things should be slow and serious, and because non-bureaucrats should be able to follow these things in real time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose dissolution, especially as proposed, and not simply because I'm a 'crat. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction (as stated by Useight stated, above), and I also agree with Floquenbeam, EVula, and NewyorkBrad, as well as MBisanz, SmokeyJoe, and several others above. I see no valid reason for pursuing this course. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. For what it's worth, it was most certainly not a knee jerk reaction, merely a response to a mounting sense that the position of 'crat has been slowly eroded over the past few years. My opinion, nothing more. Also, this was never a proposal, it was "a simple question" about the position, so all those who suggested I was actively proposing something perhaps should re-read the initial post. In any case, once again thanks for all the opinions, it's nice to see that the community still place some trust in our bureaucrats. I'd appreciate someone closing this thread down now, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A Bureaucrat to sit ex-officio on Arb Com

I suggest, for both pragmatism and symbolism, that one bureaucrat should be an ex-officio (& non-voting) member of the Arbitration Committee.

The bureaucrats are charged with privilege issues, especially adminship.

Arb Com is charged with ruling on editors' disputes (behavioural, not editorial disputes), and is to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.

The two have overlap, from two very different directions.

A bureaucrat ex-officio member symbolically asserts the strained theory that Arb Com is a committee with terms of reference and not the project's ultimate authority.

As Arb Com members are not (generally) bureaucrats, some inside expertise on their role is desirable.

I would have the Bureaucrats choose their representative by a method of their own choosing, subject to approval of their representative by Arb Com. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop request

Jreferee (talk · contribs) contacted me via email to request resysopping. He used email as he has forgotten his Wikipedia password and the email account associated with his Wikipedia account has been deactivated. While I figure out if and how we can verify the person who contacted me is the original Jreferee, I wanted to post here to start the 24 hour due diligence period. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, even if we could verify that the person is the original Jreferee, I'm not certain that we'd be able to reset their password to allow them to access their account. Although this is technically possible by WMF sysadmins, most are presently on a break for the Christmas holidays and even if they could, I'm not sure that they would, has this ever happened before? Thehelpfulone 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have the same concerns expressed by Thehelpfulone. Unless we can clear those hurdles, he may just need to create a new account and run a new RfA. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If I can prove his identity and he passes due dilligence, my thought was to rename the present account out of the way and create a new account, which I would give sysop to. WP:RESYSOPS and WP:FORMER indicate that such moves are allowed by practice. MBisanz ^talk 15:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same as MBisanz.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 16:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If it can be definitely established that this is the correct person, then I have no problem with that. This one just has more hurdles than most requests given that the editor in question can't access his account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've managed to properly corroborate his story to verify his identity. The address of the person who emailed me this morning is the same as the email address used in this December 23, 2006 post to the wikitech mailing list. That mailing list post was claimed by User:Jreferee in this December 23, 2006 edit to the RefDesk. I find that to be sufficient corroboration to prove the person who emailed me this morning is User:Jreferee. Once the 24 hour review period expires, I'll rename the account, create a new account with the password mailed to him, and sysop that new account. MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That's impressive work, no doubt aided by the skills you've developed in your checkuser work! I'm going to ask a sys admin to see if they can reset the password or put in the new email address for that user account so that the user will still be able to keep their edits under one name, I'll post an update soon if I get a response. Thehelpfulone 18:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reedy (talk · contribs) just did it. So no need to rename once the 24 hours have passed. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reedy (talk · contribs)'s change didn't appear to take, so I did this again. --Ori.livneh (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Bah, if somebody last edited in 2007, hasn't logged in so long that the password is long forgotten and the email address is no longer active then perhaps it would be proper to have them start editing again on a new account, gain the community's trust and then run for a new RfA. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:ADMIN#Notifications and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_26#Inactivity_proposal_for_admins_concluded, people generally agreed with a brief notification period to let people reclaim it if they would otherwise be affected by the new policy. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am aware it is allowed by policy. Merely commenting that an admin that stopped contributing 5 years ago when he was blocked for a spamming multiple pages and didn't bother to came back in 5 years probably should be active a little bit before requesting a sysop flag. Regardless, I am aware that this is merely a personal opinion and that the policy allows for such request. It merely reflects badly on the individual requesting this, and it is in no way the bureaucrats' fault. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. But, we did just have a debate on it and the community rejected my more restrictive proposal on regranting in favor of the three year proposal, so I don't think there's support for a narrow interpretation, even if it would be logical. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, this was a day before the admin left for good. This should definitely be examined. --Rschen7754 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw a lot of edits right before they left and sent a flag up on crat-l asking for more help examining that aspect of it, once I had solved the verification part. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not in any way advocating that you should disregard the policy and decline to resysop the user. I am merely noting my two $0.02 and it's more directed at the user and that other former admins who act like this than to the 'crats. I am in no way implying any criticism of your actions nor am I suggesting that my comments should influence your decisions. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't feel criticized. I know we're stuck with the current policies and I fully expect this particular matter to be examined before we regrant. MBisanz ^talk 20:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Snowolf here, my experiences with Jreferee was mostly mixed but edited in good faith, but disappearing right after a 15 minute block. He probably purged his password because of that incident and got frustrated, but this should be considered more carefully before giving the tools right away. Secret ^account 20:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The related thread is here on AN/I (shockingly, I commented on it and I don't even remember doing so) FWIW, his fifteen minute block wasn't entirely controversial; he was blocked for sending a list of administrators a link to a page to be categorized on. No admin actions or whatnot were the result of the block. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The activity that led the block doesn't bother me so much, as it wasn't malicious even if it wasn't a good idea. It does raise yet one more issue of how the Crats define "under a cloud" if the editor leaves and is later de-bitted solely due to inactivity, although I gather that the "cloud" would be irrelevant in those cases. (assuming they didn't leave to avoid process) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would use the standard of whether they became inactive to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR). I don't think a 15 minute block for excessive talk page messages would meet that threshold. MBisanz ^talk 21:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think the overwhelming majority would agree with your assessment here. The block was relatively trivial, and wasn't even a sanction really. The fact that he lost the account and password and stuff worries me a little, but I don't have a problem trusting you or the other Crats to have done due diligence in insuring this really is him. Like Sno, I worry about having the bit with no recent experience, but during this grace period, we knew we would get some of these, as they can't wait due to the 3 year portion of the policy. FWIW, I don't see any policy based reason to deny the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support notifying admins in resysop requests like these that Wikipedia has changed since they left, and that they should read up on current policies and take things slowly to prevent further issues. --Rschen7754 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Or in short, what TRM is doing. :) --Rschen7754 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure this resysop is a mere 8 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: he made precisely zero edits here in the past five years, why would he need to use the admin tools and is he aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in his preceding five years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Was the block or other actions prior to leaving related to the tools and responsibilities of adminship? If not, then "under a cloud" doesn't apply. Because said scrutiny is of that, not of actions any editor may perform. - jc37 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about a cloud. My question was standalone. I wanted to know why an editor who hasn't made a single edit for five years would wish to retain admin rights, and why our community would have any trust in an editor who has made made no contributions. I'm entitled to ask a question. It doesn't mean that our current procedures won't still resysop him, don't worry. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, my comments weren't to you specifically, just concerning the discussion in general (the threading is starting to get more complex, so I didn't even try to insert my comments within above : )

I was merely commenting on a principle of policy, as I was/am concerned as to how the discussion was starting to appear to "lean" concerning "under a cloud". and so wanted to ask if others had seen any "admin-related" issues, rather than just editor-related ones.

and no, I haven't taken a look at the editor's contribs yet, this was merely concerning a principle of policy.

And I should hope that you (and anyone) can ask questions. - jc37 00:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a normal ebb and flow - IRL interferes with edits, that changes, and people come back. Not remembering a password after five years of not using it is not surprising. WP needs good admins - most of the current admins are classified as not active. Apteva (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But this admin hasn't even edited once in over 5 years, so we have no idea how good they are in this environment. I started in 2006, and Wikipedia is a completely different place, and expectations are completely different for admin now. It has been so long ago, we really don't know what kind of an admin he will be, or that he will even contribute at all. TRM's question is certainly a reasonable one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI that while the email has been reset, the account won't let a password reset happen for 24 hours, so he can't log into it yet. He is following this thread though and did let me know that he intends to read up on policy changes and take it slow once he's resysopped. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for relaying and posting my request for restoration of the tools, MBisanz. I affirm the above request and appreciate consideration of my request. -- Jreferee (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, would you be kind enough to answer my questions I posed above please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

Hi all, I have been too busy lately to participate that much, but now that I finally have time to return, I would like to have my sysop privileges returned. Thanks.TSO1D (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You were desysopped for inactivity and I know of no particular controversy which would preclude return, so a crat will get around to this request after 24 hours. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure your resysop is a mere 22 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: you made one edit here in the last four years, namely the edit to request your admin tool back. Why would you suddenly need to use the admin tools and are you aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in your preceding four years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

24 hours having elapsed and discovering no new information, I have resysopped. Please do drop TRM a note to answer his question though. MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin request

Hello, I was just told that my admin rights are going to be permanently lost if I don't manually request them restored, so I'd like to do so in the hopes I can find time to get back to work soon. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure your resysop is a mere 23 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: you made one edit here in the last five years, namely the edit to request your admin tool back. Why would you suddenly need to use the admin tools and are you aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in your preceding five years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, but also noting that ArbCom did not desysop and that was roughly 6 months before editor left altogether. --Rschen7754 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. My question notwithstanding, I feel uneasy about this resysop given the unanimous conclusions of Arbcom "back in the day" about inappropriate behaviour as an admin. Back then, a ten-day suspension of sysop ability would these days most likely equate to being removed of the bit, more importantly the behaviour of this editor was noted as exhibiting "substantially similar previous behavior" which "was discussed at length by the community" which revealed " the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them"..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like "a cloud" to me ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, part of the sanction was "InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days." I count 41 edits after that Arb hearing, scattered over a few months before leaving. I will leave the interpretation up to the Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, I have been periodically reading what's been going on behind the scenes over the last few years, so I'd like to think I'm still pretty up to date. The reason I'd like my privileges back is because, as my edit history shows, most of the work I did here was simple reversions from the 'recent changes' list, uncontroversial speedy deletions, and other 'mop' type activity. I had always planned to come back after a break (and had been told that wouldn't be an issue), so when I do come back, that'd likely be where I'd want to pick up at. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a no from me. Other 'crats may see if differently, of course, but I can't see the purpose in re-promoting this editor based on no activity for five years and a cloudy past including admonishment from Arbcom (albeit back in the day). Suggest the editor submits himself to RFA, like other candidates, so the community can assess his ability in the current climate (i.e. understand the five-year gap and whether or not the editor meets current standards). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading WP:CLOUD is quite enlightening in this case. I quote:

A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as appropriate to resume the role at will once it has become "stale".

The concern also arises because resignation may be seen as having resolved the issue and therefore the matter may have been dropped by others rather than examine an issue that is no longer in need of remedy.

Accordingly a user who steps down in such a way that it seems they have evaded their conduct being actually assessed by the community, or their fitness to the role being affirmed, may be refused the right to automatically reclaim that role later without going through the usual process again to confirm they do in fact have the community's trust.

Given these definitions, InShaneee does not meet the definition of having resigned under a cloud. The resignation was not before the user's conduct was fully examined, and was not done to evade assessment of their conduct as the Arbitration case was completed. If InShaneee had remained active then they would likely still have their administrator rights. As such, do we have the right to decline the request? I do not know the answer to these questions yet. I will need to think more about this issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well rather than just blindly following the guidelines, I'm suggesting an editor with no edits for five years and who had an Arbcom case admonishing them for dubious admin behaviour in the past is not a suitable candidate for immediate re-sysop. If this is the kind of candidate we blindly re-sysop "per policy" or "per guideline" then we've got it wrong. How can the community have faith in this kind of candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm "blindly following guidelines" when I quite clearly stated I've not even made my mind up about what I think is the correct course of action yet. All I was doing was giving some points for consideration. That is allowed, yes? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be a little careful of how these essay (not policy) pages spring into existence and who edits them. That pages contains some sensible points (and some less sensible points IMHO), but is basically one contributor's viewpoint and is far from an exhaustive account of the factors that have been (or should be considered) in these cases. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my fault, I didn't mean to single you out here, my apologies. I meant, instead of "us" (i.e. crats) blindly re-sysopping, this case seems more contentious than most. I see no good reason to resysop someone who hasn't made a single edit in five years but suddenly gets an email telling him he's not going to be an admin any more, just for him to show up here asking for his bit back. When we rename people, we often ask questions like "are you sure you won't edit on behalf of others" or "are you sure you're not editing with a conflict of interest", but with this resysop process, we're just saying, sure, after five years without a single edit, you can just become an admin again. Seems anomalous. I would like these candidates for re-sysop to dedicate themselves to some kind of editing, rather than just give them the admin tool back after five years of inactivity barring a single edit to say "I need it back....". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair point. I need to think about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the e-mails sent out for were that exact reason: to notify of the impending lengthy inactivity policy going into place on January 1 and to see if they were interested in the tools being restored under the former process (with the 24 wait, now). On that note, I would be very weary of a resysop in this case, 'crats. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Weary or wary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo, sorry. Being wary can make you weary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this a very borderline call. On the one hand, I lean in the same direction as Rambling Man - inappropriate conduct leading to sanction followed by extended inactivity sounds like controversial circumstance / under a cloud if those words are to be given their natural meaning. On the other hand, I can see the argument that the "controversial circumstances" having been investigated and found to warrant a temporary (not permanent) removal of rights, it would be wrong for that decision to be second guessed because the inactivity of the user allows bureaucrats to do so. That doesn't necessarily strike me as what's happening here. I think the key question is: does the ArbCom decision "cleanse" the misconduct such as to prevent us weighing it in the balance when considering whether to restore the tools? On balance - I don't think it does. As I understand it, restoration of rights without RfA is meant to be available to administrators in good standing. Refusing to resysop without RfA is not a bureaucrat imposed sanction, it simply reflects our assessment that the circumstances in which a user left / became inactive were controversial such that the question of whether or not rights should be restored should be referred to the community. This seem to me to be such a case - notwithstanding the temporary desysop, I do think InShanee stopped editing in controversial circumstances. It therefore seems best to err on the side of caution and let the community decide at RfA, but I think input from other bureaucrats would be helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WJBscribe excellently conveys both sides of the decision. I think ultimately we should AGF and think that the inactivity was not from the ArbCom case. I would ultimately say to resysop through AGF and go from there. They can always be desysopped through ArbCom case if they prove to misuse the tool.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this for quite a while, I'm leaning towards agreeing with WJB here. I think that given the nature of the situation, RfA is the best bet. This is not us saying declining to resysop, it is us saying that in this case it is not up to us to decide. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after seeing Jreferee's request, I decided it was worth sending emails to the people I had Mabdul notify earlier this month about the change in policy; that's why the latest requests are here. My take is that the community does not want us acting with discretion in resysopping requests. The presumption is that a user can be resysopped unless a prohibition applies. The prohibitions are:

1. User has been inactive for three year period of time which includes or is subsequent to the date of desysopping (details vary): InShaneee filed this request prior to the expiration of the prior policy
2. User resigned the tools in a manner so that it appears he did so to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR): InShaneee's conduct was scrutinized by Arbcom and his conduct subsequent to the case does not indicate he left to avoid further scrutiny
3. The reviewing bureaucrat is not satisfied that the person requesting resysopping is the original owner of the account or that the account's security has not been compromised: No one has questioned InShaneee's identity
4. Subsequent to desysopping, the user engaged in conduct of an extreme and egregious nature such that no reasonable person could doubt they would have been desysopped should they have done it while an admin (socking, severe copyvios, etc.): InShaneee made no edits subsequent to his desysopping for inactivity and no other bad acts have been alleged

Based on that analysis, I don't see on what basis we can deny a resysopping. We don't judge admin behavior, that's Arbcom's job. We only judge if a person resigned to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior. No reasonable person could find that InShaneee resigned or went inactive to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior because Arbcom actually reviewed their behavior. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• What if all the Crats have looked at it and have simply decided "I won't say no, but I can't say yes"? Would the request eventually be closed out simply due to an unwillingness of a sufficient number of Crats willing to openly approve? Are Crats obligated to give a definitive opinion if they have commented? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis here, and I think a member of ArbCom (or a couple) should comment here about whether InShaneee should be resysopped or not. It's clear that the crats disagree in this case and emotions are high, and its not worth all this drama. Secret ^account 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What drama? This is a very calm discussion. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What Deskana said. I don't have an opinion and don't see that it would be helpful even if I did here. My questions weren't rhetorical, I am genuinely curious. And this is outside of ArbCom's scope anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe drama is a poor choice of word, I'm trying to say to keep emotions low and one resysopping isn't worth so much discussion. There been way too much scrutiny on the bcrats lately and I don't think this is a case to have a long discussion over considering the circumstances. He became inactive after a RFAr over four years ago and had a RFC prior on the same concerns, I think it is one of these "exceptional cases" ArbCom should mull over to resysop or not, and not worth fighting over. Secret ^account 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it is a very interesting, calm and productive conversation from my reading. Arbcom doesn't have the authority to give someone the admin bit, only Crats do. And as we have learned through my previous learning experience, Arbcom has no authority to review the Crats decision unless there is some misconduct by the Crats, and there certainly isn't. I think you are misreading this thread Secret, this is exactly how the process is designed to work, and it is working quite well: no rush, honest discussion, thoughtful review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be that the crats as a group owe it to users to decide on matters the community has entrusted to them. To simply fail to conclude on a request would be a abandonment of their responsibility. Also, I don't know why an Arb opinion would matter here. I don't see any possible question of user misconduct or uncertain identity, which is what Arbcom handles. As a practical matter a decision will occur because I'm willing to resysop and intend to do so after the 24 hour period unless another crat says they intend to make a decision to the contrary at that time. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Crats are required to act. There are very few circumstances where an editor, regardless of permissions, is specifically expected to act. The right to not act is essentially a soft form of WP:IAR. I think it is acceptable for Crats, or anyone else, to say that while policy dictates a specific action, 'I personally do not feel comfortable performing the action, and will leave it for others to act.' If no one can be found willing to carry out what policy calls for, it suggests the policy is sufficiently flawed that it needs to be fixed. That said, I agree with MBisanz's analysis above, (I'm not sure when the 3 year rule kicks in, but no one has claimed it applies here), policy dictates a resysop, and if MBisanz is willing to act, I also see no problem with that. Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree no person is required to do anything on Wikipedia, but I don't think a group (crats, admins, etc) should be allowed to collude to shirk avoid fulfilling a function they were entrusted by each of them individually claiming they were uncomfortable making the specific decision. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't endorsing or even referring to colluding here. Colluding to refuse to resysop would be passive-aggressive, and distasteful. The "I won't say no, but I can't say yes" did seem to be a common theme that I took as sincere from all concerned. I've simply not seen that situation here before so it begged the question, which I think you've answered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it; that's simple. Crats are elected in part because of their individual history of not getting into fights. One way to not get into fights is to not actually say an opinion, but rather express an initial view and say you're open to more discussion. If you look at old crat chats, they're basically in the same form. I suspect it's a selection effect of the high RFC threshold. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this one, I think that one or more Bureaucrat can sincerely say "I just don't know." and mean it, which could lead to the situation I described. From your responses, I basically deduced the answer to my questions to be "Bureaucrats as a group don't have the luxury of not making a decision, and at least one must make the final call.". There is no "do nothing at all" option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, if we're going to be such a small subset of the community because of the trust required, I don't think we can, as a group, avoid fulfilling the functions the community has given us. Part of this is deciding these decisions. If we want to be seen as legitimate delegates of a community function, we can't shirk the responsibility when the going gets tough. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to correct TRM's assumption about the ten-day suspension. It wasn't a mask for tool removal or any such thing; we desysopped plenty of administrators back then and if we thought he deserved it we'd have done so. The incident in front of us just wasn't all that serious by itself. Administrators make bad blocks all the time; if he hadn't blocked a user with stout friends it never would have come to arbitration. Having come to arbitration, we inevitably passed a remedy but it wasn't much. We deliberately did not desysop him, and we could have. I don't know if that helps your deliberations. Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that none of the current arbitrators (either the 2012 arbitrators or the 2013 arbitrators) were part of the Committee that decided the InShaneee case in 2007. I do remember the case from the time, however, and I think it is clear that if the Arbitration Committee had thought that InShaneee should be desysopped and compelled to undergo a new RfA to become an administrator again, they would have voted that remedy. When the case closed with a 10-day suspension remedy, and InShaneee requested and was granted the tools back at the end of the 10 days, that was the end of the matter. At the time InShaneee became inactive, there were no remaining disputes open regarding him, and so from the perspective of "under controversial circumstances" or "under a cloud," I think under the current policy he is entitled to reinstatement. :

Of course, quite independent of the arbitration case, it is debatable whether an administrator who's been inactive for almost five years should be entitled to be reinstated on request. I personally have mixed feelings about that subject, but on balance I think our experience is that most of old-time administrators who came back from long breaks and reclaimed their adminships have used resumed their use of the tools in a cautious and responsible fashion. But the community has recently discussed this at length, and the consensus was to change the policy—but also to build in a grace period before the new policy took effect, for those who returned and requested adminship back before the policy change took effect. For better or worse, it seems to me that InShaneee and the others posting on this page fall into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-Admin Request

I would like to request my admin status be restored. I now have time to return to wikipedia after a successful re-location to China, and I hope to start being productive again, mostly on the Cheshire WikiProject, but also more widely. I also note that some of the concerns that I voiced when I resigned before have been addressed. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over your background and see no problems. We'll get to this as soon as the 24 hour period passes. Good to see you back. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I also looked and everything looked good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to prevent this occurring as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings from a former admin

I've just read on my talk that automatic resysopping is going away, and if I don't ask for it by December 30, I'd have to go through RFA again. I hereby affirm that this seems sane, logical and altogether a good idea to me, and I wouldn't want to be resysopped just because I used to qualify for adminship in the past. In the unlikely case I'll ever return, I'll run for administrator like everyone else. Happy editing! JRM · Talk 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! MBisanz ^talk 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your work, and thank you for your view on the resysop process. Indeed, your suggestion that you would prefer to regain the admin bit via RFA is quite noble. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Finer points of re-adminning inactivity desysops

I'm seeing a couple points of contention come up - among crats - repeatedly in these discussions about resysops, and I wonder whether it might be worth discussing them separately from any particular request for re-adminning.

First, there's "what constitutes 'under a cloud'?" I see some crats interpreting this as "A cloud exists if there is evidence that the user would have been desysopped had they remained active", and others as "A cloud exists if there is evidence that the user left to evade scrutiny of their actions." The actual wording of policy appears to be "[...]that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." It might be (very) worthwhile for either the crats, or the community + the crats, to determine exactly what types of cases are intended to be caught by this. A user who quit just before an Arbcom motion-to-desysop went through? A user who got blocked and handed in their bits in response? A user who survived an arbcom case with sanction but without desysop? A user who survived an arbcom case with no sanction, and then quit? A user who was involved in an ANI discussion when they left? A user who knew an ANI discussion or arbcom case was coming down the pike, and left rather than deal with it?

Second, the issue of crat discretion. I'm seeing a number of crats commenting here (in various cases) that they simply have no choice, no matter what the waiting period turns up, they must restore the bit. Other crats seem to feel they're allowed some amount of discretion, either by virtue of "not obligated to act" or because the now-mandatory waiting period was put in place on the assumption that crats would be allowed to analyze the evidence that's provided to them during that time.

These seem to be points of intra-crat disagreement, and I think it would smooth things out quite a bit if you guys could reach something resembling an internal consensus about what you feel your discretion and job title allow, and/or what you would prefer them to allow. It may be that you guys can all get on the same page with a bit of a chat, and it may be that that page actually calls for community discussion of what it wants crats doing. Or it may be that you can't agree, and it comes down to which crat attends which case. Either way, the community seems to be having a hard time understanding exactly what you guys understand, and it would be helpful to get that ironed out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The canonical example of departure under a controversy/cloud is an administrator who retires (or arguably, under the new policy, becomes completely inactive) while an arbitration case is actually pending against him or her or while a request for arbitration is under serious consideration. One purpose of the rule, which was actually crafted by the Arbitration Committee itself (before I was a member) as far as I know, but has long been accepted by the community and included in policy, is to help ensure administrator accountability. Another was to avoid the need for long, bitter arbitration cases to decide the status of administrators who were prepared to resign the tools. (There had been a couple of very lengthy and bitter arbitration cases involving admins who had already agreed to resign adminship or were willing to do so, and this was detrimental for a number of reasons.)

I don't believe it was ever intended that the controversy/cloud exception to resysopping on request would apply to less weighty challenges to administrators, such as an ANI thread about an isolated incident, or a 15-minute (or even a significantly longer) block, or even an arbitration case in which the administrator is involved only tangentially. Of course one can imagine borderline situations, such an arbitration case in which the administrator's level of culpability is debatable, or an admin-conduct RfC pending at the time of the retirement. The general rule is that the bureaucrats have discretion in these circumstances. Whether these cases should be handled by an individual bureaucrat or by group consultation is a question for the 'crats.

The other area in which some editors were concerned that the 'crats were disclaiming any discretion was with regard to retired or inactive administrators who returned and sought to reclaim adminship after an exceptionally long time had passed. As to this concern, I think the community's adoption of the new policy putting a time limit on automatic resysoppings has addrssed the issue (at least once we get past the next week or so before the new policy kicks in). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop

Please re-sysop..

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

KnightLago (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Former arb, last edits summer 2011. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin request for Ligulem

Ligulem (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
Hi all. I'd like to ask to get my admin bits back. I lost them due to inactivity and I was told I can get them back by a request here. I believe I wasn't even notified when I got my admin bits removed, but I may have missed something. Thanks. Ligulem (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

While procedurally you'll probably be re-sysoped in the next 24 hours, you've made no real edits in the last three-and-a-half years. Is there a reason you feel you still need the admin flag? Are you aware of all the changes to all the relevant policies? Do you think our current community deserve to gauge your current ability against current admins e.g. by running in another RFA? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm eligible for resysopping. Sure I don't know all the changes of relevant policies, but I know how to look them up. I don't think the heart and the spirit of the core rules has changed in the mean time, but of course I would look up everything again very carefully before acting. Back when I got my admin bits by an RFA it was a big deal. Frankly, I think I would not pass an RFA anymore ever. I think I wouldn't even try anymore. My request is indeed to avoid a new RFA. But why do you guys have the current rules where I'm eligible for? Why don't you simply send everyone in my situation to RFA again? I don't really think I need those rights right now, but I think I'd frankly like to avoid going through another RFA. But if you want to send people like me through a new RFA, so be it. Ligulem (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel you wouldn't pass an RFA anymore ever, why would you think it appropriate for you to be resysoped without scrutiny, other than in a "fair play" kind of way? I don't want to send anyone anywhere, but I'm interested in why people like your good self who haven't edited the Wikipedia seriously for nearly four years suddenly need to keep admin rights. Just a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I think I've honestly answered that question: I want to avoid a new RFA. I was also once a bit proud to have gotten the admin bits. But if people like you don't trust me anymore, that's ok. Your writings almost read like you are assuming bad faith on my part. There's nothing evil behind my request. I've read the new rules about resysopping and I think I'm eligible. When I stopped editing I was assuming I could get the admin bits back if I decide to return. This has changed, I was notified about that change and I was told that I will lose my admins bits definitely if I don't ask for resysopping now. Ligulem (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no bad faith, just an honest and open question why you would appear after four years' absence and ask for the admin flag back when you fully acknowledge that you believe you would not pass a current RFA. I'm not looking for "evil", I'm looking for some idea why anyone who is not commensurate with current policies nor has made any edits for four years would need to suddenly regain the admin bit. However, I appreciate your honest answer about wishing to avoid an RFA. You will no doubt be resysoped as a result of our current procedure, so you needn't worry about that I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ligulem, there has been a lot of discussion and policy change on resysoping (that is why you received the last notification, as a courtesy). I think The Rambling Man's questions are in good faith and legitimate. He said your answers won't affect the outcome in his eyes. The answers actually help us as a community understand why some people who aren't going to use the bits, want them. You have to admit, the idea someone admitting they can't pass an RfA and likely won't use the bits anytime soon (if ever), makes a person ask "Then why bother getting the bits back?" What value do they have if they aren't used? I'm not a Crat, so my opinion isn't very relevant here, but I admit being curious as to the answers myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I do understand your concerns. But if you think it to end, then the current rules would be absurd. The consequence would be that anyone like me would simply have to go through a new RFA. If you want to change the rules, then say so. So it seems, what we are discussing here are the rules, not my case. The problem I have is a timing problem: If I don't act now (which I've done by this request), I will lose my admin bits forever (today I thought that I somewhat would regret that, I started even reading about rules again). I know it sounds a bit silly. I think if you request the same high standard as required for new admins, then I won't meet them, right. Because I wouldn't pass a RFA now. All I can say is that I once met them, a long time ago by internet standards. And I assure you that I am still the same person. I didn't edit for quite a long time now, yes. But I may start editing again. Ligulem (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Part of the reason that the policy allowing for automatic return of the admin flag sans an RFA is to allow editors to take a break as needed and return to active administrating when they see fit. I resigned my tools in October 2010. I asked for them back in January 2011[1] and was given them back without objection, despite the fact that there was a decent chance I would not have passed an RFA at the time. TRM, if you would like to encourage Ligulem to seek adminship by going through a reconfirmation RFA, then you should make it clear that you are doing so in your capacity as a fellow editor and nothing else. NW (Talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I appreciate the answers, Ligulem. The resysop rules were changed because there needs to be some limits to how long, and the 1 to deactivate, 3 to require RfA was just the compromise. Having some kind of limit is a reasonable protection for the community as a whole, I think. I don't doubt your sincerity at all, and I would in fact hope you do come back and do some editing and rejoin the community in a meaningful way. Feel free to ping me if I can help with the new rules, I'm an admin and I've been here since 06 myself. I've seen lots of the changes first hand. Lots of others would be happy to help if asked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

NW, I don't see anything wrong with the questions TRM is asking, in fact, I think we all benefit from understanding the reasonings behind these requests. There's a slight difference in taking a wikibreak and not showing up at all for 4 years. I for one am very, very much interested in understanding the reasons why users who haven't been active here in 4 years suddenly want to become active and require admins tools to do so. I don't think either TRM or I would be even blinking if after four years they became active for a bit, say, a month, and then found out that they would like the tools back and so requested them. It is this whole exercise of being inactive for ages *and* asking for the tools before becoming active again that can give the impression sometimes that the sysop flag is seen as a hat that's nice to wear. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that when users run for RfA, we expect them to familiarize themselves with the policies *before* running. There's already enough admins who don't read the policies, there's no need for admins that vaguely promise (or not at all) that they might look up the policies in the future, after getting resysopped. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is quite remarkable about what some people are putting in my mouth here I haven't said :-). This starts by Dennis assuming that I wouldn't want to use the tools anyway and goes to Snowolf, who assumes that I don't read policies. He or she even uses the term "running". That's telling. So what you guys are trying to hold here is an RFA. That's it. Ligulem (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)