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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 00:38:53 on May 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Third Crat opinion sought

Wikipedia:Changing_username#Jaakovs_.E2.86.92_MASQUERAID. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU archiving

The Bot archiving is a little puzzling. I think they're ignoring  Not done tags which are preceded by : or *. Am I right? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to some particular cases please? --Chris 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure of myself, but the page seems regularly to be clogged with unarchived items, and I unscientifically observed that they tend to be ones with punctuation preceding them. Thinking further, I believe there are several Bots that tidy the page and I now wonder if some of the Bots cope with it and others don't, making it take longer for them to be archived...? --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mine is the only bot that archives WP:CHU(SUL) (Cobi's archives WP:CHU/U). Not done requests are archived 48 hours after the last timestamp on the request. See the brfa for more info --Chris 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, move along nothing to see here. <blushes> Ahem. Sorry! --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag question

Do we have a preference between Special:Makebot and Special:Userrights? I don't do bot stuff that often, so I can never remember; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags doesn't say which is preferred, so I thought I'd ask those that are better versed in the ways of bot flagging... EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From a technical side of things Special:Userrights is preferred as Special:Makebot is deprecated and will be removed some time in the future --Chris 10:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Special:Makebot be removed from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags, then? Also, maybe a note to the MediaWiki message at the top of Makebot could be added to say "This is deprecated, please use Special:Userrights instead." Although, since I would hope that all Bureaucrats are watching this noticeboard, and they're the only ones who can even see Makebot, I'm guessing that all of the relevant people are already going to know that. Also, a technical question from a technical newbie: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags says that using Makebot "results in bot flaggings being logged separately from other user rights changes"; does this mean that Makebot lists it in the "Bot status" log, and Userrights lists it the "User rights" log?--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. Probably someone should change MediaWiki:Makebot-header to include something similar to MediaWiki:Makesysoptext. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would personally prefer Makebot to be used, so the user rights log isn't clogged up, but that's just me personally :) Majorly talk 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you, the separate log is valuable. I suppose though I don't really care what tool I use to do it if the log could be separate or at least searched reliably. Some of the toolserver tools designed to be catch-alls aren't really. - Taxman ^Talk 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Makebot puts a log entry into the "Bot status" log, which Userrights puts it in the "User rights" log. 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that Makebot is technically obsolete per mw:Extension:MakeBot and given that its author has been inactive for sometime, it would be best to have the sysadmins merge the Bot logs with Userrights (like they did when Makesysop was merged with Userrights, and then turn off the Makebot function. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Happy-melon added a deprecation notice last July, which Wbscribe reverted in August, being (as most of us) unaware of its impending doom. I've reverted to Happy-melon's version. Is the merger of the Makebot log to the Userrights log something that should be requested on bugzilla? Or is there some other avenue?--Aervanath (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugzilla would be the right method, User:MaxSem had a script to do this before he retired, but I don't know if anyone else has a copy. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, this was just want I was looking for. I've removed Makebot from the 'crat page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Log merger requested: bugzilla:17272--Aervanath (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RMHED reinstating votes from an indef blocked troll

Resolved

 – Reversions have not recurred since this discussion was posted. — neuro^(talk) 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RMHED has now twice reverted both my and Black Kite's indenting of a indeffed troll's !vote ([1][2]) on the basis that a 'crat didn't indent the vote. Hoping the latest revert by Garion96 sticks, but if it doesn't, could a crat hop along to Root's RfA and indent it? Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Funny how the supporters only indented an oppose !vote and not a similar one in the support section. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith. Have you heard of it? — neuro^(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, why thank you for pointing it out to me. Goodness me don't I feel silly now. RMHED (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Which support vote do you mean? --Conti|✉ 23:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he was talking about this. — neuro^(talk) 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, both the support vote and the oppose vote by the blocked users have been indented now, so I hope everyone's happy. :) --Conti|✉ 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In general though neuro we have asked non bureaucrats simply to comment on potential sockpuppets and voting irregularities and leave the indenting to bureaucrats. That can help reduce this type of friction. If there has already been conclusive evidence of socking, then feel free to indent and comment to that effect. Otherwise just let us know that the proper channels are being pursued. - Taxman ^Talk 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A related matter

Since the question came up on my talk page when I flat-out removed a sock !vote, do we (the bureaucrats) have an official stance and/or personal preference on the two (strike the !vote, or flat-out remove it)? In the case of blocked socks, I'm all for simply removing the comments, as socks aren't part of the community and therefore have no suffrage to participate in the RfX process. New editors tagged with {{spa}} should remain unindented, and we'll just take them into consideration, while editors who are blocked during the course of the RfA should be struck (er, their comments, not they themselves). Am I on the same page as everyone else, or am I just marching to the beat of my own drummer off in the corner somewhere? :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a 'crat, but in my opinion everything you said above would seem pretty standard, with the exception of the comment about blocked editors: I just want to clarify that this should only apply to indef-blocked editors; editors who are given, say, a 1-week civility block are still part of the community. Even in the cases of those who were blocked indefinitely, the fact they were blocked doesn't necessarily mean that their opinion wasn't valid, no matter which section it was in.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find WP:RBI persuasive. It would seem that removing banned users' contributions would be the right thing to do. Otherwise, if banned users think their thoughts might influence an RfA, we only encourage trolling. --Dweller (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If they were banned or blocked BEFORE the RfA started, and are editing RfA in defiance of their ban, or using sockpuppets to get around the block, then absolutely just remove the comments; WP:RBI certainly holds. I'm only wondering about cases where the block/ban began AFTER they contributed to the RfA.--Aervanath (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to EVula. I'd tend to agree that comments made before community sanctions should stand, perhaps with the exception of where the RfX in question is directly connected with the behaviour that led to the ban. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's the same way I was thinking. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Thanks,--Aervanath (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

inactive

I'm going to be inactive from now on, so I guess that means one less bureaucrat around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes, Nichalp. I hope you reconsider soon. You're a valued addition to the team... and only a tiny bit of that is because you promoted me to admin :-) --Deskana (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

COI violation! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck in your non-wiki activities, Nichalp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp, I'm sorry to see you go. I wish you success and hope you'll rejoin us sooner rather than later. — Dan | talk 05:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bye, Nichalp, the wiki won't be the same without you. I wish you the best of your luck in your future endeavors. Xclamation point 05:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope all goes well for you. bibliomaniac15 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

Just can't keep away from the tools. And my math class has been a joke so far (especially for a eight week course), when I need to be inactive, I'll just stay away from a computer. But if I have some time, another adminstrator won't hurt. Secret ^account 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to say I'm not too excited that this is the second or third time you've given up the bit and asked for it back. That added to the several name changes doesn't help the case, though I do understand avoiding harassment. But if you can confirm there were no controversial circumstances and someone can vouch that you never abused the tools, then I can't see a reason not to give them back. Just please write 100 times on your nearest chalk or whiteboard that you'll never again try to break your wikicrack addiction by giving up the tools. :) PS I cleaned up your logs a bit for you. - Taxman ^Talk 04:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not under conterversal circumstances. Secret ^account 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As Taxman has asked for someone to "vouch" for Secret; to the best of my knowledge Secret resigned the bit in good standing, and has never abused his admin tools. Yes I am aware of the name changes. Pedro :  Chat  15:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having been on this wiki since 2004, I could also vouch for Secret. I have always thought his admin work to be above average. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 15:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not vouch. Jaranda is unstable. I think he has the history of resigning and coming back the most times out of any admin. He has also misused admin tools on occasion, such as the deletion of Mzoli's Meats, which caused a lot of controversy (and the action was completely abusive in an attempt for him to be desysopped.) I do not trust him to be able to delete. "In good standing" only works if the editor continues to behave well. There are several people on the "resigned in good standing" list who have since gone on to have controversies of their own making. Jaranda is such a person, I'm afraid. I'd be extremely unhappy if Secret/Jaranda/whatever is sysopped without an RFA. Majorly talk 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That diff is enough for me to not be comfortable giving back the tools, but more input would be good. - Taxman ^Talk 16:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it is from 2007, so it's not my main concern. I honestly can't remember, but he may have even had an RFA after that incident (which I ended up opposing). It might have been before though. My main issue is that he's completely unstable. I was talking to him about his numerous departures and resignations well over a year ago, so it's not a recent thing. Admins should have some sort of stability, and not resign every other month. Majorly talk 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know Secret, have never interacted with them and also don't know whether they have abused their tools, I have to agree with Majorly (yeah, I mean it, Majorly ): I think stability is mandatory for admins. — Aitias // discussion 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that an action from 2007 would prevent a user to regain his admin bit that he resigned in 2009, two years later. There might be concerns here, but they were obviously not enough for ArbCom (or a Steward, ot the community) to do anything about it, right? --Conti|✉ 16:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about his instability, the abusive deletion is merely an aggravating factor. Majorly talk 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with periods of inactivity. This is a volunteer workforce, so it's not reasonable to require some minimum level of participation. But, repeated cries of "look at me, I'm retiring!" indicate a lack of maturity. A more reasonable person would simply take a break for a month or two without fanfare, if that's what they wanted. Also the deletion log above indicates a lack of maturity. We should not welcome admins who act like kids. Friday (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why does avoiding harassment result in so many -syops? Only to keep requesting it back. Synergy 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a shortage of sysops? At some point changing usernames, resigning and unresigning serve to obfuscate a user's history, giving them multiple chances to make mistakes without facing consequences. This is a case that may be close to, or have even crossed, that line. I oppose a speedy resysopping. Jehochman ^Talk 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The Mzoli's was a big error in my judgment, but it was almost two years ago. I used the tools before and after since than, with many thousands of deletions, blocks, and so forth. The instability portion was over three years ago as well (2006). I requested desyropping this time because of classes as I'm taking two math classes in one semester and math is my worst subject, and if I fail either or of the classes, I will have to miss a semester of college just for a stupid math class. This isn't a case of look at me I'm quitting because I want attention. If I want to quit, I wouldn't be editing and say nothing in my userpage, like I was inactive most of 2008 after someone discovered the doom building I stayed from my former college. The honest truth is that I'm just going to use the tools part time (at least for this semester), but a experienced part time administrator is more helpful right now. It's a shame that I'm the poster boy for instability. Secret ^account 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note I re added myself to the former administrators list, with a 1 next to it, I still want to see opinions though on this, especially those I just rebutted. Secret ^account 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What silliness here. There are three (maybe four) ways to lose your adminship: emergency by steward, ArbCom, self-request, and sometimes recall or community pressure. Only two of those would be considered "cloudy." This is pretty clearly a self-request not under controversial circumstances. As for the assertion by Jehochman that getting a rename is an attempt to obfuscate anything, well that's just absurd. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not need admins with a history of instability, flipflopping between having rights and not, and some dodgy deletions (admittedly from a while back, but still, not good). We should not ignore everything except for the day he resigned, which happened to be a non-controversial one. Majorly talk 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about whether, in your opinion, Secret will make a good admin or not. This is about whether Secret resigned under controversial circumstances or not. Whether that is the only thing we should be looking at when giving an admin his tools back is something that's probably best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, where the policy can be changed accordingly (if there is any need to). Can we please not turn this into some kind of RFA? --Conti|✉ 18:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins should have trust of the community. Secret does not in my opinion. The fact he isn't an admin is an opportunity to see whether he does have community confidence. As I said, we should not ignore everything apart from the day he resigned. Majorly talk 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some dodgy deletions?, it's only one Secret ^account 18:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is a fairly clear cut situation of somebody who has resigned at their own request, and not under a "cloud". Extending "resigning under a cloud" to mean "did the admin ever do something that anybody disagreed with at any time during his/her tenure as an admin" is ridiculous. - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• So even if the admin behaved atrociously after they were desysopped, they can just get adminship back at the click of a button? That seems ridiculous to me, but you're entitled to your opinion on this issue. Majorly talk 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• After? Thus far only one diff has been provided and was dated well over a year ago. Secret's bit was last removed (by request) on 8 January 2009 (less than one month ago). Can you provide a diff to substantiate the claim that Secret "behaved atrociously after [he was] desysopped"? If I'm missing something, I'd be happy to change my stance. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel his flipflopping between adminship and not is a sign of immaturity and instability, and thus unsuited for adminship (in my opinion). Never said Secret was "atrocious", it was an example. Majorly talk 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Majorly is trying to use this noticeboard as a reconfirmation hearing. He even said so himself, "The fact he isn't an admin is an opportunity to see whether he does have community confidence." This is wholly unacceptable. Please re-admin the account. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is community confidence wholly unacceptable? Please don't readmin unless there is consensus to do so - thanks! Majorly talk 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While Majorly brings up valid concerns, I am of the opinion that if a person gave up the bit when the policy clearly stated that all they had to do was request it back, then unless there is clear (recent) evidence that they shouldn't get it back, then they should. I am a strong believer that when somebody quits or goes on an extended (3+ month) break, then they should give up the bit. If we start demanding reconfirmations, or even allude to such, then nobody will give up the bit. (This ties into my belief that gaining AND losing the bit should be no big deal----but if you make one side or the other a big deal, it becomes such. If we make regaining the bit after a break a big deal, then nobody will step aside.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation: not done

•  Not done For the record, a user coming here requesting their bit back is not the time for a reconfirmation discussion (in so far as mentioning any slights that the sysop may have made during the course of their duties); the only thing that we (the bureaucrats) should concern ourselves with is the background surrounding the removal of the bits. (this suggests that the discussion is entirely within the purview of the bureaucrats, thought the community is welcome to provide evidence for discussion; this is a fancy way of saying "what just happened is pretty much a good thing")
  Fact #1: Jaranda/Secret requested their sysop bit removed,[3] which is usually not an issue. Fact #2: Jaranda has been promoted three times already,[4] which is extremely problematic; we (the bureaucrats) are here as a courtesy to former administrators, not as a privilege. Fact #3: Jaranda's logs show a considerable amount of "drama" (for lack of a better and less polemic phrase) immediately prior to his request.[5].
  These three facts, when taken together, constitute "a cloud." There was a reconfirmation RfA for Jaranda just a few months prior to the Meta request; another reconfirmation will be needed if Jaranda/Secret is to regain their sysop flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'crats have spoken. Thank you, EVula, for at least now stemming this conversation even if I disagree whether Secret resigned "under a cloud" Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You know you gave links from 2007 right?, We are talking about 2009, and I became a syrop again a month after all the drama happened back in 2007 (didn't cause any drama), and I stayed with the tools thoughout 2008 until 2009, when I desyropped myself in unconterversal fashion because of school. Secret ^account 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sure EVula is aware of the dates. Useight (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll admit that the renaming doesn't help me when it comes to tracking down what your full history is, and I may have missed something as a result. However, fact #2 remains: the bureaucrats are not here for your personal beck and call. You need to make up your mind about whether you want the tools or not, and just being inactive for a couple of weeks because of school is hardly a reason to get the flag removed.
      Once I get done with a bit more work, I'll poke around a bit more; in the meantime, any other bureaucrat is welcome to "overturn" my {{notdone}} if they feel the new evidence is sufficient; I hold no exclusive claim to the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Then Mark must not have been aware of all of the issues involved because after September 2007 that clearly should not have been a case of giving the bit back after you gave it up under uncontroversial circumstances. Consider the following for more:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• So all the mess happened after the latest RfA. That combined with the rest confirms my gut feeling and EVula's decision. - Taxman ^Talk 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Make that four times, EVula - see the log for user Jbeach56, his former username. Majorly talk 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Still waiting on EVula comment on the talk page, really I don't want to see an RFA ever again, I can't stand RFA, I rather stay desyropped for good than to go though a hellfest RFA, unless there is reform. Secret ^account 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It feels like I'm being lynched here, I'm sorry for wasting the community time. Secret ^account 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Resigned uncontroversially"

I think this particular phrase is problematic. There are many administrators who resigned "uncontroversially" in 2005/6/7, but have since had a very controversial wiki-life, and would not have a hope of passing RFA should they request it. Example, above, Jaranda/Secret resigned (yet again), but not directly following some controversy, so he wasn't under a cloud as such. However, as I wrote above, I would not be able to trust him to delete, and his history of unstability is unsuitable for adminship. I think any admin who wishes to regain the bit, who resigned it "in good standing" should at least post to WT:RFA so that more opinions can be given. Some time should be given for comments (not another RFA, obviously, but something is needed). It's just lucky I was pointed this out, otherwise I might have missed it. Majorly talk 16:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give difs from less than a year ago please. Secret ^account 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You know exactly what I mean when I say you're unstable. No need for diffs. Majorly talk 17:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this would lead to the general attitude of "Never, ever resign your admin bit", which certainy isn't what we want. If there really are problems, there are ways to deal with it. Creating some kind of ad-hoc RFA for every uncontroversial resignation isn't a good idea, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There would only be a problem if the admin had a history of instability, or problematic editing. Majorly talk 18:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before Lara resigned, the one thing I urged her to do was to keep her +sysop because of nonsense like this. Time goes by, people change their minds and wish to return to adminship, and suddenly old grudges re-emerge and a noticeboard is being treated as a reconfirmation hearing. No, there's absolutely no requirement to post WT:RFA and there never should be. That page is a shithole that I wouldn't wish on most of my enemies. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't nonsense. Lara didn't resign every other month. Lara didn't have 8 RFAs. Lara didn't abuse or misuse admin tools. If she came by today, I'd have no issue whatsoever with her being resysopped (as I wouldn't have an issue with most people). Majorly talk 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't, I wouldn't, but I have zero doubt that some would... she was a lightning rod because she spoke her mind. I know that if I were to resign, it is proposals such as the above that would lead me not to give up the bit. I DO support changing the policy going forward, but I do believe that there has to be a grandfather clause for people who gave up the bit under the belief that they could simply request it back when the time came.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes back in 2006, and then Mzoli's, nothing this year or last year, or for most of 2007 (Mzoli's exempt) though, resigning because of school isn't a definition of unstable. Secret ^account 18:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You've resigned how many times now? Plus how many "retirements"? Majorly talk 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are avoiding my question Secret ^account 18:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I answered it. See above. Majorly talk 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really about you, it's about the general case. You were just mentioned as an example. Majorly, perhaps you could withdraw the example so we can discuss the important matter? This specific case can be discussed in the section above. --Tango (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Majorly has a point here. We generally don't bother making a fuss over people doing things wrong unless there is actually something to be gained from it (this is a good thing). That means that when someone does something that would be bad enough to get desysopped, but not bad enough to be banned, and they're not an admin, we pretty much ignore it (we would probably tell them we thing they shouldn't have done it, but that's all). This is absolutely fine in the vast majority of cases, but it falls down when it comes to voluntarily resigned admins. There is really no difference between an admin and a voluntarily resigned admin - both have access to the same tools, one just has to have a word with a crat first. We shouldn't be treating them differently. My suggestion would be to just do away with the rule that says former admins can get their bits back (this should not be retroactive, of course) - there is nothing to be gained by resigning anyway (unless you are involved in controversy, but that's irrelevant), so why not just keep the bit and not use the tools? Then when an inactive admin does something wrong, we can go through the same desysoping procedures as with an active admin (this should happen fairly rarely anyway, since you can't abuse the admin tools without using them, and that's the usual reason for the desysoping). --Tango (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tango, I think once resigned, all admins should have to go through RFAs. Either you want to be an admin, or you don't. If you don't want to use tools, don't use them, simple as that. Resignation normally indicates something permanent, not coming back after a month asking for them back. RFA will establish community trust, if you want tools again. Majorly talk 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see what we'd gain from this, apart from encouraging every admin not to resign, ever. --Conti|✉ 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resigning is good if you need to take a break for school, work, family issues, and so forth and you are too addicted from the tools. That what I, and a few other administrators do. As for me I don't want this to be a drama shitfest, I already have alot of that, so I decline from getting my tools back for now at least. I really think a WP:RFC on me is the best opinion, similar to Majorly's six months ago, to see what I really did wrong. I'll create one myself. Secret ^account 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you didn't. Just request adminship through the normal means and be done with. It'll be drama, but an RFC will be horrible. Majorly talk 18:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have the self-control to avoid using the tools, then, quite frankly, that's your problem. If you get so addicted, then perhaps you shouldn't be an admin in future. Just as there is no cure for alcoholism, I don't imagine there is a cure for admin-addiction. If it's not a full blown addiction and you just struggle a little with temptation, then perhaps someone could write a script to hide the admin buttons? --Tango (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief; agree with Tango (again): frankly you're digging the hole deeper and deeper, Secret, and giving even more reason to suggest you're unsuited. Majorly talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bleh wrong term. I had the self-control to avoid editing for over six months last year, it's just cases with school I rather not have the tools. Of course that's a big mistake that I need to pay for now. Secret ^account 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging every admin not to resign unless they have a good reason to, yes. It don't think that's a bad thing. What we gain is not having bad users getting the bit back just because they weren't bad when they gave it up. --Tango (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking up steward/bureaucrat time just because you can't pull yourself away from the keyboard seems a little...off. Notwithstanding, perhaps a formal reconfirmation WP:RFA might be easier than an RFC. –xeno (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Majorly talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But if we encourage admins not to resign their tools, we won't ever have the situation where bad users would want their tools back, because they would have never given them up in the first place. :) Those bad users would be bad admins in this case, and they'd never have to ask for their tools back, since they didn't let go of them. We'd encourage admin addiction, so to speak. "Cling to it until someone takes it away from you by force!" --Conti|✉ 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But we have systems in place to deal with bad admins, so I don't see the problem. You speak as if people resigning adminship are actually giving something up, they aren't. They're just putting an extra hoop to jump through between them and the tools - a script to hide admin tools would serve the same purpose. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, in most cases, there's no reason for admins to resign their tools, and sometimes it's outright silly. But I don't think we should make it harder for admins to get their tools back if they resigned without any controvsery. I just don't see the advantage in that, because - as you say - we do have systems in place to deal with bad admins anyhow. I suppose there might be a case where an admin resigns without any controversy, then becomes a controversial user, and then wants his tools back. But I think our 'crats can deal with such rare cases just fine. --Conti|✉ 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are exactly the cases we're talking about. Crats can only deal with them if they have all the necessary information. The requires some kind of review period so people can give them that information. If you really want to let admins resign for no reason, then a fairly simple review period is all that's required (a week in which anyone with an objection can make it, a crat decides if any reasonable concerns have been raised and if they have the former admin has to go though RFA - this review would not be a vote, there would be no chance for people to make statements or votes in support (support is the default, so there is no need), just objections, and the objections need to be serious enough that the crat things ArbCom would think at least twice before rejecting a case regarding them). I think this is unnecessary bureaucracy, though, since there is no need for these admins to be resigning in the first place. --Tango (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll request adminship under the normal means in the future, and without a nominator as well, not now of course. As for the WP:RFC, I'm open to criticism, and the drama will be pointed in my direction instead of the project. See what I could improve to be helpful for the project. Secret ^account 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Great. A simple resysop has to go to OMG DRAMA. Now Secret has to go through an RFA that doubtless will be OMG DRAMA x umpteen. Perhaps no-one noticed the ANI plea this morning due to the CSD backlog. Majorly, I'm particularly disapointed in you, given your own desire to have the bit back to help out yet you deny it to others. Yes, we don't want admins resigning / coming back / resigning ad infinitum. Yes adminship is not some kind of "old boys club". But dear me these two threads seem to be drama for the sake of drama. Pedro :  Chat  19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Our bureaucrats/stewards have better things to do with their time than to be messed about by Secret who can't make up his mind whether he wants to be an admin or not. How do we know he's not going to resign again?

I don't think I'm really comparable to Secret in this respect, but of course it's totally up to the bureaucrats, not me, in this decision, so whatever they do I'll have to live with, and hope Secret doesn't retire/resign again. Majorly talk 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How does his potential to resign again affect this request to flip the bit? If he does resign again I'm sure I for one will be far less vocal and supportive in getting the bit back. Right now WP:FORMER grows ever longer and our active admin count hovers round 940 (a low of at least a year).

I see more good than harm, nothing outside process and precendent, and as importantly nothing that will form a precedent. For these reasons just give him the bit back and lets move on. Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He's done this before though. Last time I may have had more confidence in him, but he quit yet again, and is back less than a month later. Oh well. You're right though. We should move on. I have other things to do :) Majorly talk 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Give it back but no more of this business. –xeno (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also be happy for him to be repromoted with the promise he does not resign for no good reason again. It is starting to become a joke, honestly. Majorly talk 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then when he requests that his tools be removed, it is done with the understanding that if he wants to get them back then he would need to go through an RfA again. Trust me, he'll think twice before giving them up.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, I've asked him to stop resigning and coming back in the past, and to just keep the tools but not use them. This was most likely around his last (8th) RfA in July 2007. I don't know if he promised anything but he really ought to now. Majorly talk 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if he gives it up, then it should be done with the clear knowledge that he won't get it back just by asking, I'm just not comfortable changing the rules after the fact and unilaterally on one person. It would be one thing if we made it for all admins who gave up the bit, but I'm not comfortable with setting a precident that might be applied to anybody after the fact.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Majorly talk 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Secret, based upon the above discussion, would you agree that if you ever gave up your bit again, that you would have to go through an RfA?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this matters. It's up the crats- they'll do what they do. Personally I don't have any problem at all with crats using a bit of discretion- I don't think they should ever promote anyone they think was (or would be) a bad admin. Friday (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with Friday, it's up to the crats. I'll add myself to recall if anything, and also would go though RFA again if I gave up the tools again. Secret ^account 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Then the proposal is simple. As I noted above we are not creating any precedent. We are also not creating a consensus. Simply that we need a crat to resysop an account, that has been resysoped without controversy before, and that said account has made a commitment as above that is not relevant to this resysop but would be binding at a later date. Surely we have a bureaucrat brave/sensible enough just to do what has been done in the past in respect of regranting the tools. Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be a different story if somebody were to say, "Secret only stepped down because he was involved with a controversy at ANI that was going to result in his being desysopped" or "Since Secret left, he has been warned multiple times for Editing warring and using socks." As is, this seems pretty straight forward.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a number of poor or at least questionable AfD closes that make me opposed to restoring adminship. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rubber-Band_Man_(Static_Shock) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mainframe_(C.O.P.S.) clearly had no consensus to delete either. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) no explanation was provided as to how the three deletes trumped the three keeps, two merges, and one redirect, especially when the nomination was a copy and paste applied to numerous articles and the deletes either repeat the nomination practically verbatim or are of a WP:JNN nature. In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sennon and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schutzwald nearly everyone seemed okay with at least a redirect. Moreover, one of his last closes is under review with several admins and editors in good standing arguing to overturn. Thus, I am concerned that some of these discussions are being closed out of personal bias rather than a neutral read of the discussions and as such we are losing content as a result. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And consensus was deletion in all these AFDs, AFD isn't a vote count, if I didn't do the redirect, oh well that's an editing concern. And the DRV are 50% - 50% right now, if we desyrop every adminstrator that had a closure overturned in AFD, there wouldn't be hardly a adminstator left. Don't get your personal bias against me involved here. Secret ^account 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete any of those and I can't see how anyone could have read that. I would not say there was a clear consensus to keep either, but certainly none to delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's a bit irrelevant here. If this was an RfA, then your points would be valid but we're really just talking about whether Secret's resignation was under controversial circumstances. Black Kite 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant, because if we are discussing re-giving someone admin tools, we should consider how he has used them. As he's resigning while a DRV with a good deal of participation is underway on one of his closes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Re-read the thread. It's not about that. Please do other editors the courtesy of actually reading what the conversation is about before sliding in your comments. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is not a reconfirmation RFA. Comments such as A Nobody's above would be relevant and welcome at such a reconfirmation. They are very much not relevant here. I hope I don't need to spell this out any more clearly that these types of comments are not within the scope of the Bureaucrat's demesne. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So we ignore all his problematic AFD closures completely? Majorly talk 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another issue

Regarding this, from past personal experience, I am under the impression that we cannot in effect vanish and start over. He is simultaneously evoking right to vanish, while saying he will come back with a hidden username. As some here probably remember, I was strongly given the impression by many people that we are not allowed to do that, i.e. if we vanish, we cannot come back starting over with a new account. Rather we must return with our old edits and blocks public. As I was told I can rename, but keep my block log and edit history from my old name. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)