Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

LEONA23456 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeat Vandalism on Page Samuel Ryder Academy

86.0.88.200 IP is consistently vandalising page Samuel Ryder Academy and being disruptive. Please can you block this IP address from constantly editing the page with disruptive information. 18 Sept 2020 Kich n (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Question concerning adminstrative involvement in a matter

Hi. I act as an administrator to the English version of the Vikidia project. Where we don't have a local policy concerning something, our guidance is to follow what Wikipedia would do. To this end, I have a question: recently, one of our users nominated me to become a bureaucrat, without talking to me about it first. I refused the nomination, and then acted to close the RfB as a declined nomination. Should I have done that (as I'm involved), or should I have asked another admin or a bureaucrat to shut it? If what I did was wrong, it gives me better guidance but to do it again! Dane|Geld 20:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: In ours, I don't think any great reaction would have occurred whichever option had been taken, I wouldn't be concerned. Where possible, WP:NOTBUREAU applies Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If you didn't open the RFB, and you don't want it to be open, then there is no issue with you closing it. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. At least I made the right decision! And I'll remember WP:NOTBUREAU for the future. It will come in very useful. Dane|Geld 21:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of adminship / "under a cloud"

Following a desyop request ([1]), a discussion started on the nature of resigning the tools "under a cloud", and the convention of determining if the circumstances in which requesting the tools to be removed were likely to be seen as avoiding scrutiny are determined at the time of requesting the return of the tools. The essay Wikipedia:Under a cloud gives further information on the matter, and has been updated as a result of the discussion so far. The discussion is copied here, where people are free to join in. The wording of policy on the matter is: "Former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. Adminship is granted unless one of these situations applies: / Adminship was resigned while "under a cloud." If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed." SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note in the event of a resysop request in the future, but Guy has been heavily involved at the Andy Ngo and Antifa pages recently, and has recently taken INVOLVED admin action by partial blocking an editor from the Antifa page. See this ongoing discussion. I have no comment on the merit of the block, but this is also not the first time Guy has requested a desysop amid questions of potential out of line admin actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

At the moment Guy is free to ask for the mop back, and it would be given. He hasn't resigned from Wikipedia to avoid being desyopped. If someone decided to open an Arb case regarding the incident, and Guy didn't turn up for the case so it couldn't be heard, then he wouldn't be allowed the tools back on request until the case had been heard. But if he was responding to the case, and he asked for the tools back, my understanding is they would be given - I'm not sure of a reason at that point why they wouldn't be because responding to questions about an admin's actions is compliant with WP:ADMINCOND. Guy has his own reasons for requesting the removal of the tools, but it doesn't appear to me that avoiding scrutiny is one of those reasons. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

When I asked for the tools back two years ago, I had a cloud of supporters arguing that I should not get the tools back because the resignation was "obviously" under the cloud. Even though nobody could provide a single example of misuse of the tools, the argument was that my behavior was "obviously" below the admin standards, and three crats in fact opposed the return of the tools. Based on this experience, I strongly recommend every admin who is resigning the tools in a situation which even remotely can be interpreted as controversial, to stop using the tools but keep them instead. (No opinion about the current case, though I apparently protected this article a few days ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As has been previously established, the determination of whether the tools were resigned "under a cloud" is done when the rights are re-requested, not at the time of relinquishment. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that’s why I said “ in the event of a resysop request in the future” and noted that this has happened before when their tool use was questioned. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any serious indication that Guy has misused the tools, nor that he violated WP:INVOLVED, nor that he is under any sort of "cloud". Certainly the thread you linked provides no evidence of any of those things, so I think it's worth nipping these insinuations in the bud. Separately, Guy has said that he's taking a break to manage stress and burnout, which is something we should encourage admins to do. You're weaponizing his distress, and his mature response to it, which is a really shitty thing to do. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Not that we'd determine anything on the basis of an editor whose main raison d'etre appears to be to edit-war on AP2 articles and opine on drama boards, of course. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions are fun to cast, but I’ve never been the subject of any noticeboard issues nor caused any dramatic ArbCom cases. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"the determination of whether the tools were resigned "under a cloud" is done when the rights are re-requested, not at the time of relinquishment" pithily put. I'm going to add that to WP:CLOUD. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never been sure why the convention is to do it that way; perhaps it's just because if someone's resigning the tools and never intends to return, then there's no value in raking them over the coals. But on the other hand, there's an argument that if an accurate judgement of "under a cloud" is to be determined, it would be better at the time of the resignation, when the events leading up to it are still fresh in everyone's minds. And if it was determined here that a cloud was going to be summoned, the person might decide not to resign after all.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear me. Do any of you guys want to rename this thread "witchhunters gather"? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: just to be clear, my comment has nothing to do with Guy's relinquishing of the tools here - I have no opinion whatsoever on that, other than that it's a shame to lose one of our experienced admins. I was commenting on the "under a cloud" process in general. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"At re-request, not relinquishment" is a stupid rule that is very unfair to would-be-resigning admins. The admin should know whether their resignation is or is not under a cloud, so that the admin can decide whether or not to resign under a cloud. Not telling them until after they resign is "gotcha!" I have no say here, but change the stupid rule. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In theory what you're saying could be true. In reality, I think the passage of time works to the resinging sysop's benefit. Issues that seemed large at the time don't when read later on and because people aren't as agitated about it either so the rhetoric cools off a little so we're able to put it into better perspective. And that's not counting that our current crat corp has repeatedly shown itself to be looking to find reasons to resysop rather than not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem many people seem to be having here. All Mr Ernie seems to be saying is, "If JzG requests readminship, here is some context that will assist in determining cloudiness." this is a good thing for the encyclopaedia because if it does indicate a cloud then we don't resysop someone who should not be without discussion, and if it is not the indication of a cloud then everyone can clearly see that and there can be no accusations of trying to hide things. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, mine has been considered "under a cloud" when I lost it in '10 because of the circumstances that led to it. (TL;DR, self-blocking was involved and this was shortly after CRASH badges were bundled in. I have no desire to be part of CRASH, and since the badge remains bundled...) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Readers will note I made no mention of a cloud in my response. I was providing a link to a current discussion that may have impacted this desysop request. Interested parties can now easily go check this discussion in the event of a resysop request and judge for themselves if there are any clouds without having to dig through page histories using old dates as guidance. I thought it was an involved action, others disagreed, but it will be for bureaucrats to decide in the future. There’s no need to shut this discussion down. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because this happens every time an even remotely controversial resignation happens. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Potentially controversial resignations need to be looked at. Especially if one admin makes a habit of it. Are you able to quickly check the events behind JzG’s last desysop request? It’s actually kind of hard to find. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Under a cloud#When and how a determination is made --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've quoted the above so it's clear that it was moved from BN. If that's problematic feel free to undo it, but I was really confused at first seeing a multi-thread discussion by one user. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• What I am taking from this is the wording "If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation". But that doesn't go any further. So if there were serious questions which were addressed and appropriately resolved, then there is no "under a cloud". I'm wondering if we should be clearer as to what "under a cloud" actually means. I'm thinking that "under a cloud" is really a situation where an admin has not followed WP:ADMINCOND, and so would have been desysopped if an admin. I think that's much clearer. SilkTork (talk)

Actually, I was thinking of WP:ADMINACCT rather than WP:ADMINCOND. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What is this section aiming to achieve? Here's my understanding of the events:

1. Sysop asked for a desysop, and it was done; no issue there.
2. Someone dropped a link to some ongoing stuff; linking to something "for the archive" is reasonable and has been in the past, but it was editorialized, which was unnecessary (and, of course, happens).
3. Various other editors, with and without the relevant position, chimed in on the editorializing, which was likewise unnecessary (and likewise happens).

In theory it should be:

1. "Desysop plox." "Done."
2. "Here's a link for the archive"
3. Perfunctory 'crat comment about how cloud determination at resysop, yada yada yada.

Right? Is a policy change needed, or just behavior? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Amory. The purpose is to discuss the issues around restoration of adminship "under a cloud". What exactly is "under a cloud", and when - by policy - should the judgement of that cloud be made. Indeed, should 'Crats be making that decision at all? If 'Crats decide not to restore the tools they are effectively desysopping the admin for doing something "cloudy" but without clear policy guidelines on what that something cloudy actually is. Should there be a section in this policy which says something like: "If an admin resigns their tools for the purpose of avoiding explaining or accounting for their actions per WP:ADMINACCT they need to re-request adminship through the typical requests for adminship process. If an admin wishes to request the tools back on request from the 'Crats, and there is a claim they resigned the tools "under a cloud" they would need to supply evidence that they did adequately explain or account for their actions at the time they resigned the tools". SilkTork (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork, that's clear — I didn't see anything up top with an aim beyond background/context, so it looked like we were just rehashing the particular case. I stand by what I said, but this is crystal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Re Barkeep49's response to my comment above, I think "works to the resigning sysop's benefit" is a bug, not a feature. Is there any analogous example from the real world? Do we ever see in the real world a situation where someone can relinquish something, think they're relinquishing it temporarily, but the "rule" is that they won't know if the relinquishment is temporary or permanent until they try to get it restored? Can you imaging if taking time off from a job worked this way? "Sure, you can take time off; we'll decide when you come back whether you were fired or not, because at that time, we'll be able to make that determination through the clarity of hindsight." It seems patently crazy to me to exchange "benefit of hindsight" for "not knowing whether you're taking time off or permanently quitting". There's something to be said for "clouds" being determined at the time, when everyone's memory is fresh, rather than later. Particularly on wikipedia, where the "cloud analysis upon reinstatement" depends on someone volunteering the time to investigate the original resignation circumstances (or it depends on there still being editors around who are watching BN, remember, and care). The rule as it stands is a filtration system that makes it so that only very serious or very obvious clouds count. Some may think that's a feature; I think it's a bug. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has many tempests in teacups and ensuring that only the most egregious cases can be denied resysop helps to keep the temperature down here. It is a good thing for our community that someone has to still be motivated and passionate at some point in the future, rather than in the heat of a moment, to press a case. Plus the idea that it's more fair to the admin falls apart is that the admin wouldn't, in many circumstances, be around to discuss/talk about their POV on any controversy raised. The reason it's a feature and not a bug that it's hard to deny someone a resysop under policy is because that's what was intended and so that's what has happened. Making it easier to deny someone a resysop is not doing them a service by "letting" them leave with a clear mind. I have supported other methods to make a deysop easier in the past and to make it harder to resysop after a time away, and anticipate I will in the future but this isn't the right way to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what I think about the issue overall, but Levivich's point about a filtration system resonates. As things currently stand, it's nearly impossible for an admin who got grandfathered in but would never meet today's adminship standards (I'll refrain from opining on whether or not the admin here is a fine example) to lose the bit unless they do something really egregious. We ought to moving in the direction of making it easier to cull admins whose behavior is borderline at best. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, that resignation looked to me like an admin who was heavily editing in contentious areas and was tired of having to deal with issues of editing as an admin vs as an editor and decided to take some time off from that, rather than an admin who was worried they were going to be accused of serious involvement issues and decided to head that off. YMMV, but I found the request for desysop pretty believable. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I brought over the previous discussion as background information only. The intention here is not to discuss any individual, but to discuss in general the implications of "under a cloud", and if we need to do anything with the policy, or if it is fine as it is. If people wish to discuss the actions of any particular admin, that should be done at AN/I, not here. SilkTork (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hasn't some of this come due to ArbCom not taking cases where the remedy would be "desysop" if the editor had resigned? Are they opposed to a remedy of "disallow summary resysop - RfA required" and otherwise allow such a case to go forward? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is reasonable to say both "it's not fair to the voluntary user to wait until later to determine cloudiness" as well as "it's good to be able to know what the context was". I have a third comment that kind of sits in the middle: it is good to give things time when memory is not fresh because time will give us the kind of perspective that we might not have had otherwise (both pro-resysops and con-resysops). For example, if an admin volunteer-desysops and someone brings an ARBCOM case against them anyway, that's over a month of time before we can know whether it was a cloudy departure. In general, I think immediate is good but less-immediate (but not The Future) is better. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• This sure seems like a lot of trouble over something that's supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL. EEng 20:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a reason that NOBIGDEAL links to a section entitled "History". I support the idea that adminship should be no big deal (see WP:MUSHROOM which I've largely written) but also acknowledge the reality that anytime you remove a permission it's at least somewhat of a deal (at least it is for me). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see a need for a policy change here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Amorymeltzer:, I think you missed the part where Mr Ernie said ...but this is also not the first time Guy has requested a desysop amid questions of potential out of line admin actions - while they later backtracked on their position of it being a cloud, the intent on establishing a future WP:CLOUD is the reason why it was editorialized. In theory, it should have been (and should be) a "summary" revocation of administrator bits and that's not how we've set it up but yeah, would make things easier if the mud-slinging happens at only one end of the process. Finally, I think Barkeep49 is right (and in my opinion, Levivich gets this wrong) in the sense that the current process "might" help in assuaging some opposition of a contentious admin - but in the end, it's also a risk, however, calculated. Once you hand in the bits, the next time you want it back, the community effectively has 24 hours to make their case why you should not get back the rights, so in the end, it's just fair game. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  ​I didn't, but I think we're agreeing. That line in particular is exactly what was inappropriate at this point. "Here's a link for the archive" is different than "here's a link where they took INVOLVED action; also tried to evade scrutiny before." The first is helpful, the latter is how we get here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• An advantage for leaving these discussions until resysop is requested is that it avoids long, drawn-out discussions, going over an admin's edit & admin history, in cases where the admin never comes and requests their tools back. What if 10 admins request desysop in a year and 2 return to ask for a resysop...should we really engage in 10 evaluations on the merits of each admin when it turns out that most won't be returning? I think I'd be less likely to relinquish my tools temporarily if I knew when I did so, editors who had a beef against me would argue that I'm leaving "under a cloud"...I'd just hold on to them and not use them which I don't think is the preferred situation.

I think it would be useful to determine what exactly "under a cloud" means but I'd advocate for having these discussions when the resysop is requested rather than having a discussion every single time an admin requests a desysop when it is unclear whether or not many will even request to be an admin again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the three examples on Wikipedia:Under a cloud sum up the situations I think fall under "Under a cloud". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Writing more policy seems WP:Creep here because it is a situation that 1) does not happen all that often and when it does 2) calls for Crats to dive into very particularized sets of situations. We all know that in some situations of major contretemps, it will be generally easy for Crats to say "cloud", and in others it will be easy for them to say "no cloud", which leaves a smaller fuzzy middle which requires some discussion and using their prudence and discretion, so flexibility will be the key, not black and white policy (fitting because clouds often seem a bit fuzzy around the edges). . Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think a change is needed; it's better to wait. As Liz brings up, if the editor never asks for the sysop bit back we wasted a ton of time discussing something that doesn't even matter. There's also the added benefit of hindsight since as Barkeep points out, we have teapot tempests quite often. Is it wrong that a sysop can resign without knowing for sure whether they'll get their bit back on request? Maybe, but if there's doubt then they probably just shouldn't request a desysop and instead wait for everything to play out (and in fact it incentivizes waiting for community procedures to finish). There's no requirement that editors use the tools, so you can take a break from being an admin without having the bit removed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see a situation where editing is getting a bit heated and you may feel you may be tempted to use the tools inappropriately, or perhaps you're not sure if you should use the tools or not, so better to put the tool kit down for a while. I think putting the tool kit down at such moments is prudent, and more a sign of good judgment than attempting to evade scrutiny. For me, putting the tool kit down at moments of stress is valid as long as the user remains available to discuss matters. SilkTork (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here's a question. Is an admin still an admin if they have voluntarily removed the bit? Given that they can ask for the bit back, I would say yes. If the community are concerned about an admin's activity, they should pursue that concern at the time even if the tools have been put on the shelf. If the concern is then aired and resolved, it might encourage the user to re-take up the tool kit sooner and get back on the job. And if it is aired and the admin is found wanting, then everyone is clear that the admin cannot get the tools back unless they go via RfA. I'm not entirely sure of the value of waiting perhaps several months or a year before resolving the issue one way or the other. SilkTork (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  I was actually thinking about this a while back, around Lourdes. I never went and posted at BN about it, and initially leaned yes, but I think the answer has to be no. Maybe it's a weird in-between point, but enough of our policies assume that sysop bit = admin, nosysop bit = not admin. In particular, admin inactivity clocks begin upon removal, so someone who voluntarily had the group removed then proceeded not to edit for 25 months would not generally be considered a sysop for the two years before than 25th month. Beyond that edge case, things like relist bias might still be expected to crop-up. There's also no desysop remedy available if the tools are at the beck-and-call but not active. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I fully agree with this particular point. An admin who has the tools removed (voluntarily or not) is not an admin. Irrespectively of how their actions are perceived in the community (again, in my personal situation, I was at some point told that since I have lost my tools nobody is going to listed to my opinion, after which I went to ask the tools back - but, for example, WTT run to ArbCom as a non-admin and was elected), there are so many points in the policies, for example, non-admin closures, which make it very clear that admin is an individual with the tools. In a hypothetic example when someone has voluntarily given the tools, then performed something which would get them desysopped according to ADMINACCT, and then asked for the tools back - I do not think this could be a valid reason for the crats to reject the resysop, only for someone to refer the matter to ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a very interesting discussion of this last year at User talk:Xeno/Archive 32#Let’s talk about adminship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A user without the toolset has to ask a user with the toolset to perform certain tasks. (That was one of the main reasons I became an admin, because I preferred to do those tasks myself rather than asking someone else to do them. Like getting a car rather than asking someone for a lift all the time.) A user who has been granted access to the toolset can decide themselves to use the tools or not. Some admins haven't used the tools in years, yet are still counted as admins because, if they wish, they can use the tools. A user who has voluntarily put the tools on the shelf, can - after 24 hours - still pick them up and use them. A driver is still a driver even if their car is off the road because they can get access to another car. WTT was still an admin when he ran for Arb. He still had the essentials of being an admin: trust of the community, and access (albeit with a slight delay) to the tools. Wikipedia:Administrators says: "Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools. / Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers after undergoing a community review process. They do not act as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved." That description fits the position of those users who have voluntarily put down the toolkit. Provided they remain reasonably active on Wikipedia, they can pick up the toolkit again after four and a half years just by waiting 24 hours. Of course, there may be a longer delay if someone at that point claims there was a cloud in the sky on the day they surrendered the tools. Or there may not be any delay at all if those who were aware of the cloud (but were told to wait before raising their concerns because the user was no longer an admin) had retired, died, forgotten about it, or were on holiday on the day the user asks for the tools back. Essentially, if someone still has access to the tools, they are still an admin, and should still be accountable for using the tools, and respond appropriately to queries. The whole notion of "under a cloud" is that a user is attempting to evade accountability by ceasing to be an admin - but if we still treat them as an admin, then the community can still question them regarding their admin actions. SilkTork (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think cars/driving is a great analogy, but to go with it, I think the better analogy isn't to the car but rather to the license. If your license lapses (or what have you), even if you fit all the criteria and have filled and filed all the forms, you are not a driver until you get the thing itself (or the temporary piece of paper, as the case may be). granted the technical ability would seem to imply needing access to the tools. It also later cites blocking as an ability of a sysop, which is one thing someone who could get the bit but doesn't have it can't do without delay; if someone says "active vandalism need admin" they could not take action. And I disagree with your last sentence: anyone can do something "under a cloudm" we just only care here for the purposes of resysoping. Nothing stops the community from expressing an opinion or questioning an action; the purpose of not autoregranting the bit is to allow community processes to take place that may have been put on hold. An active there-but-for-requesting-the-bit is just as free to be questioned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(I don't have a strong opinion about when the determiniation of cloudiness should take place, or what cloudiness should mean, but I do feel very strongly that if a determination is to be made at a time other than when the desysop is requested that there should be absolutely no discouragement to editors posting links/diffs to things that might aide that determination, nor neutral summaries of those links/diffs. Whether the person posting the link/diff/summary feels the resigning sysop is or is not under a cloud should be completely irrelevant (and should not be mentioned). If a judgement is to be made by 'crats then it is important that the judgement be as fair as possible, and for that all the evidence needs to be available. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason the "under the cloud" provision was added was indeed to deal with the problem of administrators who resign as a tactic for avoiding scrutiny. The reason we do not make an early determination of whether or not a resignation occurred under a cloud is that it is unnecessarily divisive and contentious. The traditional meaning of under a cloud has been editors whose conduct was sufficiently egregious that an involuntary revocation of adminship (ordinarily as a result of arbitration) was a likely outcome. These situations are rare. UninvitedCompany 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on improving guidance

I would like to suggest additional text be added to the section on Grievances by users. My suggestion is to insert additional guidance after the first paragraph:

When expressing concerns to the administrator responsible, it is advisable to do so on the user's own talk page. It's permissible to use the administrator's talk page, but because of the increased number of users watching administrators' talk pages, this could draw a high degree of scrutiny to the discussion and may draw input and even criticism from other users and administrators, which can make it more challenging for the user to discuss the concerns in an orderly and civil manner.

The user can use {{ping}} on their talk page to invite the administrator responsible to the discussion and {{reply}} to respond. However, when the administrator indicates they no longer wish to continue the discussion, the user should respect this request and not continue to ping them. It should be noted that linking to an administrator's user page, such as with [[User:Administrator]] or {{u|Administrator}}, is also considered pinging. It's inappropriate to link to the administrator's user page in this manner in any discussion about the user's concerns after the administrator has indicated they no longer want to discuss further. To link to an administrator's user page without pinging them, use {{noping}}.

It's certainly not necessary, but I think it could be helpful in avoiding difficulty for users when raising concerns. Yes, it happened to me, but no, this is not about me. I think this guidance could be helpful for others that try to follow the guidance found here. Coastside (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) [modified to add noping, and some ce] 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A technical note - if you re going to mention things that ping, also mention {{noping|Administrator}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I modified the above to add a line on {{noping}}.Coastside (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested addition, however I don't think it would fit as guidance on this page. The suggested inclusion is really something relevant to all usertalk pages, rather than anything specific to administrators. If you comment on anyone's usertalk there's a chance a response may come from a third party. And with the exception of certain compulsory notices, you should respect any editor request to stop posting on their talkpage or sending them pings. Maybe propose it for WP:USERTALK? -- Euryalus (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll make sure , there is no more edit. Poudelkeeshab (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "exceptional circumstances to this general principle" is vague

The section "Exceptional circumstances" contains the following first sentence, "There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle."

The use of "this general principle" is vague. Does it refer to the previous section,"Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")"? Structurally, if this is about the previous section, why isn't it in the previous section as perhaps a subsection

And about the principle involved, what is it? It seems if it is an important principle it should have a clear statement of what the principle is. In reading the previous section, what I get out of it is "Wheel Warring is bad". Is that the general principle?

Could someone clear this up for me and maybe revise the page.r

Osomite ^hablemos 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Janitors"

@Cryptic: I saw your reversion of the "janitors" label.[2]

If memory serves - and my memory is as tight as a metal sieve - the term "janitor" and "janitorial duties" was a lot more common on en-wiki when I first joined in the late '00s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's the name for sysops on Wikiversity. I've seen used tongue-in-cheek around here, but not enough that it needs bolded in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If this were 2007 yeah, it might deserve a mention, maybe even a bold spot in the first sentence. But it's use has waned enough that if it were still there now, I might recommend removing or at least de-emphasizing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikiversity term for what we call administrators is actually "custodian" * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request by Kerlouche83

Moved to Talk:United Nations Federal Credit Union

19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) to discuss establishing a community based desysop policy. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Anton Delbrück

Hello administrator. I would like to ask you if I could create an article about Anton Delbrück. I know there is already another article about him in German. All I ask is to create another article about him translated in English. I will accept whatever answer you tell me. 3cutefluffy (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to ask - Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is probably the best venue, or for new users, the Teahouse. As it is, I have created Anton Delbrück as a redirect to pathological lying as a starting point for somebody to translate and reference the full biography from the German Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Adminship term length RFC

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Request for comment/Adminship term length to discuss adding an term length to adminship, and what to do at the end of an admin's term. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Long-term nearly-inactive administrators

Out of an abundance of caution, I would like to say upfront that this is not directed at any particular administrator. Although this question is provoked by an issue raised at ANI, and I will use WGFinley's history as examples, I do not think that they are in the wrong on that point or have done anything wrong in their editing. This situation has provoked questions I have been thinking about for some time.

GorillaWarfare's post raises questions about editors who were granted the tools but use them so infrequently as to not inspire confidence in their admin actions. As noted by JayBeeEll, WGF's activity has been very sparse for a very long time. According to XTools, WGF hasn't exceeded 100 edits in any year since 2012 and exceeded 50 edits only once in that time (2018). Their logs record 20 administrative actions in that same period prior to today. When Jackmcbarn returned after a three-year break (during which time they lost the bit), their initial request for resysop at BN was declined and they returned to the admin corps through a new RfA. At both BN and the RfA, the opposition rested materially on concerns that a three year break in activity was "too long" for the community to be confident in their familiarity with the rules and the current editing environment. What then, do we make of an eight year break in substantive activity?

Again, I would like to make it very clear that I am not questioning the editing record or privileges of this particular editor and I hope this does not lead to such a discussion. I am, however, questioning strongly the advanced privileges of a class of editors. Which raises further questions: How would we define such a class? How many are part of this class? What evidence is there that this is a problem? Etc.

I think long-term editors can agree that there is some number of editors who haven't contributed significantly to admin duties recently but passed RfA's in the early 2000's when the original "No Big Deal" ethos was truly A Thing. The current WP:INACTIVITY standards cover only those editors who are completely inactive. This is an issue raised multiple times without resolution. Even in the discussions that created that standard there were concerns expressed that nearly-inactive admins maybe should not retain the bit despite technically not qualifying for procedural desysoping. A request way back in 2004 highlighted five admins who passed RfA but were never very active, even as regular editors. Two of them, Khendon and Sugarfish, are still admins despite having 1,735 and 1,558 edits total over approximately 18.5 and almost 18 years, respectively. Any RfA for an editor with that number of edits today would be very, very quickly closed as WP:TOOSOON but the extremely minimal activity they produce grandfather these in. I submit that it is time to have at least a preliminary discussion about nearly-inactive admins again. Thank you if you've managed to read through my long-windedness to this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: this comes up from time to time, generally results in a no-action-needed. For some very broad reference, here are 49 admins that have not made a public log entry in 5 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins without recent logs

user_name user_editcount user_registration Last edit Last log user_group Cecropia 12523 20031226204625 20200430192801 20080116071815 sysop Wrp103 7574 20040707133428 20201101024705 20080725032125 sysop Wassupwestcoast 12025 20060906233639 20210201214040 20090906232236 sysop XDanielx 4233 20070714072421 20201205010431 20091107065713 sysop Ramitmahajan 10160 20060413080259 20210202061525 20100106163958 sysop Camembert 18983 20020225154311 20201020224828 20100107024947 sysop Cyrius 19552 20031224195156 20210214020536 20100915033929 sysop Sn0wflake 7228 20040716065200 20210126172629 20101226235035 sysop Zoicon5 24876 20030716184616 20210214161348 20110307203217 sysop Grue 6500 20040828134246 20200318184106 20110325203151 sysop Where 7160 20051225023642 20210112004554 20110810012028 sysop Wickethewok 16436 20060119092227 20201201034603 20111013041227 sysop Ilyanep 6915 20030507214927 20201023212538 20111111212023 sysop RG2 13298 20050828070336 20200306055310 20111130043959 sysop David.Monniaux 17009 20030913115900 20201124080335 20111203144756 sysop TheoClarke 7500 20050115211715 20201227231803 20120205000347 sysop Saravask 21956 20050924041106 20210122020700 20120303213457 sysop Dbenbenn 19218 20040113200123 20200615112542 20120430033021 sysop Hawstom 4787 20030903223732 20210124184818 20120507020802 sysop Stevenj 14750 20030201213757 20200506124914 20120908204551 sysop Ryan Norton 12343 20050301062750 20201107201046 20130424031459 sysop InShaneee 15947 20041110060942 20201130065643 20130513102952 sysop Ortolan88 10355 20011116235623 20201012023928 20130630192102 sysop Chris G 20249 20060827072922 20210115141750 20130801113933 sysop MattWade 23195 None 20200408192758 20130816163708 sysop Caltrop 3570 20020605160936 20200308123512 20130830211814 sysop Sethant 4503 20061218000947 20210212172101 20130916030709 sysop WAvegetarian 7430 20050531090821 20200613044231 20131212024446 sysop Drilnoth 51238 20081025231019 20200704044942 20140303022300 sysop DanielCD 31542 20040620130607 20200606154835 20140303144106 sysop Ev 12898 20050329053116 20200719191000 20140311154438 sysop Aqwis 5685 20061021144019 20210215115053 20140731212735 sysop Gwalla 8647 20040114014814 20201126035959 20141001204457 sysop Gimmetrow 45181 20060503140850 20210121223105 20141016184922 sysop CBDunkerson 14950 20030722105425 20200330020348 20150202103614 sysop Jake Nelson 2261 20030728132759 20201105140715 20150301031837 sysop Epbr123 291690 20060507233404 20200724115041 20150501020601 sysop Thedemonhog 12041 20060311173641 20200920035127 20150507173949 sysop Brian0918 41750 20040801223816 20200917224806 20150720174956 sysop Gwen Gale 47788 20061123052445 20200414090051 20150914160356 sysop (aeropagitica) 25174 20041120224638 20200731075836 20150921080934 sysop Quadell 107316 20030104001836 20201215233541 20151127012547 sysop Kizor 13142 20031019161843 20210209012030 20151127191813 sysop BillyH 5319 20040303174347 20210208144429 20151205010101 sysop MykReeve 2071 20031214124609 20201115093022 20151221131051 sysop Visorstuff 5813 20030715234927 20200903204721 20151228202552 sysop KFP 10517 20050423141401 20201107005001 20151229233117 sysop MCB 10591 20050815051420 20200702045110 20160124185654 sysop Davidcannon 99415 20040102135330 20200917033235 20160127074605 sysop

@Xaosflux:, I am aware that it comes up from time to time but many of those discussion have ended less as "no action needed" and more as "no consensus for action discernible". Those are different outcomes. That prior discussions have not resulted in action does not mean that a new discussion is not required. It is clear from the Jackmcbarn and other BN examples that inactive admins do not retain the confidence of some proportion of the user base. What proportion is that? How does that apply to technically-not-inactive admins? If one of those nearly 50 admins came back and made a controversial block, do you have confidence in it? There hasn't been substantive discussion of those points for some time recently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC) {edited to add}: Praxidicae's label of "woodwork" admins is probably the perfect word for this class. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, first off, no offense taken. On behalf of some of us that have been around a while, and have sporadic involvement in the project, everyone has things to do outside of the project. There was a time where I would spend most of my day on WP and I know how fervent many editors are in contributing to the project.

What I would encourage editors who are highly active to consider though is that the number of edits or contributions one makes shouldn't be used as the method to judge those contributions. In fact, in this AN/I incident my edit history was quickly the subject of debate and what my activity is rather than what it was I did. I was even accused of removing the edits of others and not knowing how edit conflicts work which didn't turn out to be the case.

Each of us has a finite amount of time we can dedicate to the project, some have more than others. We still have to maintain activity to keep the bit and risk losing it if we don't. I would ask for more value and consideration for people who might not have a ton of time to dedicate to the project because, to be honest, my initial reaction was "see, this is why I don't contribute as much as I used to." That's not a good look for the community and I feel the whole issue got escalated out of hand because of who I was rather than the pretty simple and completely modifiable action of unprotecting a page after intitiating discussion with the protecting admin. That admin didn't agree, that happens all the time and should be no big deal. --WGFinley (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@WGFinley: I was only providing a baseline example of something that could be measured there (logged actions over a time period), it wasn't intended to be about you. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: No worries, this was my bad, I was responding to the OP and not you. --WGFinley (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think at least one Wikipedia (German?) has annual terms for administrators. I don't think that would gain support here. However, some kind of "continuing education" requirement which basically said if you don't do X number of log actions in a year, your "bit" will be turned off until you attest to having re-read [insert a short list of reading material here], at which time it will be turned back on upon request. The idea is that if someone has been "out of touch" with the mop-end of Wikipedia for awhile, they have to do an hour or two of reading to "catch up" with the way "things are done today" to get the bit back. The idea is NOT to make it hard to "get the bit back" - quite the opposite - but to ensure that those using it after a long haitus are at least aware of current practice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Davidwr:, this is an outstanding suggestion and I would totally be on board with something like that. --WGFinley (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Shameless plug for my own essay on this: User:Maxim/Administrator inactivity. In a nutshell, I don't think we're good at finding admins who are no longer meaningfully active, as the criteria for inactivity are largely a result of compromise and additions after certain edge cases. A solution to this problem would be to have more of a consensus-based determination of (in)activity on an individual level, but I see how that makes for a massive undertaking. Maxim_(talk) 14:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  And massive drama, if our current process is anything to go by. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the mention. Please inform us of a suitable baseline number of edits and I shall endeavor to keep my end up. The metrics can be misleading as many of us, myself included, likely forage articles and make suitable corrections where appropriate. I probably spend upwards of 10 hours a week reading and adjudicating. There is more to being a sysadmin than mere edits! sugarfish (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Change to sysop activity requirements regarding a different draft proposal to increase minimum activity requirements. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wording of involved

I have copy edited the wording [3] to help this page say what we mean it to say. Using a link to conflict of interest is confusing because we also have WP:COI, which is different from WP:INVOLVED. The essence of WP:INVOLVED is for administrators not to use sysop tools when there is an appearance that they aren't being objective. Feel free to rewrite or revise further. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ra Ra Rasputin

Is it just me or is this the first thing that popped in my mind when I saw the short link for this? (the short link is WP:RAAA) 123e443 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Mop" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Mop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#Wikipedia:Mop until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Inactive admins

I suggest that when an admin is appointed, he or she is told to resign their position if they cease to be active on wikipedia. It should be part of the responsability of being an admin. I resigned as an admin as at 82 I thought I was too old to be relied on. I still do a few edits. Admins make an effort to become one. They should take to responablity to cease being one. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bduke, your behavior is admirable. I think a lot of administrators simply wander away and think they'll eventually be back. I think most probably don't stop because they come to the conclusion they don't want to or shouldn't be adminning any more. They have kids, their interests change, whatever. —valereee (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior is definitely admirable, but I think the reason many administrators don't resign when they are inactive is usually because of one of two reasons: 1: They are too inactive to care about resigning ( Admins who only edit a few times a year). 2: They want to hold onto adminship in case they want to use the tools again in the future without an RFA. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Floater for simple inactively policy change

The current inactivity policy requires that administrators go 12 months without both administrative actions and edits, which leads to the scenario where administrators who have not performed an administrative action for over five years retaining their tools past the 5 year limit for requesting adminship at WP:BN. I would like to propose to replace the first sentence of WP:INACTIVITY with the following: Administrators who have made no edits for at least 12 months may be desysopped. Additionally, administrators who have not made an administrative action for 5 years may be desysopped. I know that inactivity policy changes usually fail to gain consensus, but I hope that this one would be simple enough to achieve consensus. I am open to feedback on tweaks in the wording, and feedback on whether this may have consensus or if it has a WP:SNOWballs chance at passing. This is NOT a final proposal for voting at this time; this is a floater to generate feedback. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• This would affect 168 admins, as a first approximation.
  If your assumption is that they're all gaming the inactivity requirements by making a couple edits a year, then this will not do a thing to fix it. They'll just create and delete a sandbox in their userspace or something similar instead. —Cryptic 22:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't really meant as a proposal to fix all gaming of inactivity requirements, that would take a much broader RFC, this is really just supposed to be a relatively simple proposal to get rid of the discrepancy between the five year rule and the desysopping for inactivity rules. Currently, you can be failing the five year rule for multiple years and still retain the admin tools based on edits. ( I definitely don't want it to be a gotcha to suddenly desysop all 168 at once with no warning, there should of course be a notification and a waiting period before it goes into effect.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barring any other change, we'd just include it in the standard monthly warning cycle where we chase down admins with listing on the report, 2 talk page notices and 2 emails. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Jackattack1597: Please note: administrative actions is not strongly defined - so to implement this it really would need to be unambiguously defined. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Out of curiosity, how is it currently defined in the desysop reports at WP:BN? Since rollback isn't logged, it doesn't count. How about moving files and suppressing redirects (rights that have been undbundled to dedicated groups)? Or deleting pages via G6 (a right granted in a limited fashion to extended confirmed editors)? Sdrqaz (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: at WP:INACTIVE it is any non-edit action that generates a log entry. In the notes on BN that I typically do, it is only if there is a publicly logged action that is only available to admins. But here's the catch, that is a note and not absolute - the can is kicked down the road and would only be debated if a resysop request was made about what else could arguable be a sysop action. For example: Is editing through protection a sysop action? Is performing an action that not everyone can do, but more then sysops can do (e.g. sending a mass message) a sysop action? While these are "deal with it later" problems currently, if actual desysoping is going to hinge on it - it shouldn't be a guess. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Interesting (I was asking more about with regards to the five-year rule, rather than the inactivity that leads to the actual desysop). I suppose consensus will be hashed out among the bureaucrats if/when that situation ever comes to a head, or a bureaucrat could theoretically do it unilaterally if others are unwilling to do so (like a pocket veto), but they've historically had a limited remit so it would be a particularly bold action. It's a pretty rare occurrence when an inactive former administrator comes back to RfA anyways – I can currently only think of Regalis and Jack, but more might come to mind if I dig further. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have something like this drafted in my sandbox,requiring a logged action that requires admin tools, and eliminating the notifications entirely in these cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would fully support that proposal, and I hope you propose it soon, as yours seems to be better crafted with much better reasoning and you successfully proposed the five year rule in the first place. I'll gladly abandon this proposal if you plan on proposing yours in the near future. Eliminating notifications makes sense, as it would take away the gaming opportunity somewhat.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  What is a sitewide announcement? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Probably a watchlist notice paired with announcements at WP:AN and this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support some change to involve logged actions, but I don't think you'll get it to pass. Both voicing my support and my skepticism on whether having an RfC at this time will do much. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• I would suggest broadening the meaning of "administrative actions" beyond logged actions to include editing fully protected pages and closing discussions which are usually closed by admins. An active admin who spends their time doing something like maintaining the Main Page could otherwise be desysopped for inactivity. Hut 8.5 07:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Based on past discussions on the matter, I'd agree that an "administrative actions" requirement will only pass if it encompasses all administrative actions (e.g edits to protected pages, XfD closes, refusing to carry out an administrative action etc.) rather than only logged actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Logged actions is a much easier thing to check, especially when an editor could have made thousands of edits during those five years. But I'd agree, going for logged actions only would potentially desyop an admin who did useful admin work. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

    Are there examples of useful admin work that doesn't result in a single logged action over the same 5 year period? I can think only of commenting on AE requests in the "administrator" section (but never actually implementing one). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

    • There have been examples of admins working exclusively at DYK and whose only admin actions were editing through full protection, which is not logged. P-K3 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      Any admin who works at the main page (so WP:ITN/C, WP:DYK, WP:POTD, WP:ERRORS etc) won't generate logged actions, and yes there are examples of admins who don't do any other admin work. Processing CAT:EP won't count either. Handling requests at CAT:RFU doesn't count unless you grant a request, so somebody who does that but doesn't do any other admin work would have to accept at least one request a year to keep their admin tools. I'm sure there are other similar cases. Yes, covering this stuff is harder, but we need to do it if we want this change to be effective. I'd much rather accept having some inactive admins around than desysop someone who is regularly doing good admin work just because they picked the wrong place to work. If someone is making thousands of edits then desysopping them for inactivity is probably a bad idea anyway. Hut 8.5 12:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      I would class editing through sysop protection as a logged action (a Quarry query can also handle it). If we add this to the definition, all of those areas seem to be covered (except denying requests at venues, but surely doing so would result in at least one acceptance). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      @ProcrastinatingReader: can it though? We have Special:AbuseFilter/942 though it misses pages that are only protected by virtue of being cascade protected (which won't necessarily be true at the time you are querying it in the future). See also phab:T216827. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

      I can think of two solutions to the issue of tracking admin actions. 1: We add editing through full protection to the definition. 2: All desysops based on five years with no logged admin actions are announced on BN with a 7 day waiting period, and if there are any objections there is a full discussion with bureaucrats determining consensus. ( More work for the bureaucrats, but it would be easier to deal with exceptional cases that may come up later) Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• A solution in search of a problem. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm wondering what the problem is. What harm is there with someone entrusted admin privileges by the community, not using them often? I feel it's better for them to have them and not use them, than need them and not have them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. I personally have taken more than one break from Wikipedia for over a year. Each time I have returned to contribute as an editor and an admin. If I found my admin bit removed I may just feel that Wikipedia does not need my assistance as an admin. Why discourage what are more often than not our longest serving admins like this? This is not deleting some template that has not been used in ages, these are people who have done great work for the project. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin bits are already removed if a user is completely inactive for a year, and even under this procedure it would still be returned upon request if the user has not gone five years without a logged administrative action.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading Xeno's feedback, I am thinking that my proposal's definition of admin actions will be any logged action only available to administrators, any edits to pages that only administrators can edit, and closures of discussions or requests where non-admin closures are forbidden. Does anyone have further suggestions for refining that definition? (I want to make it as broad as reasonably possible.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jackattack1597: did you me mean? (Xeno and I do get confused a lot!) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I get you two confused because you're both crats. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And now you've discovered the Catch-22: many people who would oppose on "non-logged admin actions matter" are going to oppose this no matter how you phrase it. The oppose rationale if you go with all those non-logged actions will be Too complicated to implement. A solution in search of a problem.

I'd oppose the non-logged admin action standard for being too complicated, but would gladly support a logged action standard. I also disagree with the feedback above that non-logged actions should count has been the reason past proposals have failed. The only recent example we have is of the 5 year rule, and the "non-logged actions should count" was only brought up after it passed, and I believe by people who opposed the entire proposal.

If you want to propose this, go all in and go for logged actions. It likely will not pass, but its an actual reform that can easily be implemented vs. the "non-logged actions" bit, which will change exactly nothing from where we are today. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What if I proposed both options at an RFC? ( One ideal simple one based on logged actions , and one compromise complicated one based on all admin actions.) Also, do you think it would be better to keep current notifications for this inactivity criteria, or eliminate current notifications for this criteria? I don't want to have more than two or three options, because then it might get too complicated and nobody would bother.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Having multiple options would be interesting. That could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy to support this if the standard wasn't restricted to logged actions, but I would oppose otherwise. The current logged action standard is a very different beast to what's being proposed here, because it only comes into play if the admin hasn't made any edits for a long period of time. A logged action standard which is independent of edit count could result in an active editor who frequently makes admin actions being desysopped for "inactivity", just because those admin actions don't appear in the logs. Hut 8.5 07:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support either version, but what about a semi-compromise where admins who have not made any logged admin actions for 5 years are given a notice. If they have made non-logged admin actions within the last five years (and want to keep the bit) they have one month to provide evidence of this to the crats, e.g. by posting a diff at BN or whatever other page is being used to track. They would then not have to do so again until that diff was more than 5 years old (assuming they still have no logged actions). This will greatly simplify the workload for those dealing with inactivity while not imposing an undue burden on the admins concerned - especially if allowed to notify presumptively. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jackattack1597/New_Inactive_Desysopping_Criteria_2021 where I have 5 specific draft proposals listed and a draft statement, and I am looking for help refining them, and choosing two or three proposals to be put up for an RFC to maximize the chances of one of them achieving consensus. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

It appears that this this addition was inadvertently(?) made to apply to all re-sysops while the RfC only mentioned 'after a desysop for inactivity'. This section affects a current request at WP:BN (see comment). –xeno^talk 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It would also be useful to clarify "activity as an editor". As a starting point for conversation, Wikipedia:List of administrators defines activity as "30 or more edits in the last 2 months". –xeno^talk 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are several issues here that require consensus:

1. Is the status quo ante that the language reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity only applies to admins de-sysopped for inactivity?
2. Regardless of the status quo, should the language reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity apply to any re-sysop request, regardless of the reason of de-sysop?
3. Should stated intent be sufficient to make a bureaucrat reasonably convinced? Should admins requesting a re-sysop have to give an RFA Q1-style answer to explain their intent? Is there a need for concrete evidence of a return to activity?
4. What is "activity" anyhow? I think the community would agree that 1 edit every 3 months is not activity for these purposes (though it is sufficient proof-of-life to avoid a procedural de-sysop), and that 100 edits per month for 3 months is activity. I don't want to guess where in that range the bar would be set before an RFC; perhaps this is an area where the policy can be discretionary -- edit count is a very game-able metric.

Are there other open questions? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

I have reverted some recent changes. I did this because the new wording seemed clumsy and had poor grammar. It also removed long standing wording that I believe is important. My revert. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

contribution new article

Hello Administrators Today, I googled a name Pardeep Bastola. He is a talented Nepali artist. After not finding him on Google, I decided to make a Wikipedia biography of him and opened my account on Wikipedia. And someone is trying to make his biography and after being rejected, it is under the supervision of the administrator. The artist is the jewel of the nation and I think it is appropriate to make a credible biography of him as many people are interested in him.

I am seeking permission to make this page public again by correcting the shortcomings related to this page in the past. And if there are any suggestions, I want that too I hope Administrators will response soon. Nrm-La (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Nrm-La, this is a general page about administrators, not a contact page for them (that would be WP:AN). However, administrators have no unilateral or executive control over content. If you wish to request an article be written, go to WP:RA and make your request. If you think the subject meets WP:GNG and you have met all of the requirements in the Golden Rule, you are welcome to write the page yourself via the Article Wizard. HOWEVER, if you take this second route, please make sure you read and fully understand WP:YFA. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 RfA review

I have started a 2021 RfA review and accompanying RfC to identify what issues, if any, there are with RfA. Interested editors are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 has begun and will use the following timeline:

• 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
• 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
• 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
• 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship

Right now, we've got a bunch of bullet points that describe the criteria, then a section on Procedure, where it adds "a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor", which came out of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). This is badly organized. When I was reading through Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46#Resysop request (Rettetast), I totally missed that part and thought our crats had gone off into left field inventing new rules on their own. To fix that, I propose that the second paragraph of the Procedure section be folded into the bullet list as:

(Adminship is granted unless one of these situations applies:)

• A bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the administrator permission, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a discussion among bureaucrats.

I don't think this changes the meaning any, just makes it easier to understand since all the rules will be in one place. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This feels like it will be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose we need some objective qualifiers here. Right now this won't change the status quo of passive admins just making one or two edits a year to keep their mop. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  AIUI this is not intended to change any rules, just to present the existing ones in a better way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, rearranging deckchairs. Consider my !vote unchanged. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's not rearranging deckchairs. When I read this the first time, I came away with the wrong understanding because the information is presented in a confusing way. There's a bulleted list of things. When you get to the end of the bulleted list, you think, "OK, I'm done". There's nothing to give you a hint that you have to keep reading further down, in another section, to find what's essentially the next bullet point, disguised as a part of something else. I'm just trying to save the next person from making the same mistake. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The barrier should not be made lower. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC).

  The barrier height is not being changed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the candidate should be expected to demonstrate their intentions before consideration by bureaucrats. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC).

That's not relevant to this proposal. Feel free to make a separate one if you want to propose it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. [Pointedly:] I thought RoySmith's presentation made it quite clear that this is only in the interest of clarity, and does not change the criteria. When/If the section is changed per his proposal, I suggest also removing the word "typical" from the first sentence. There is a process called, indeed, "Requests for adminship". What's it supposed to be typical of? Bishonen | tålk 07:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
• Support, clarification not changing the meaning of the criterion--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as it's simply a clarification and does not change the meaning of the criterion. By placing it with the other bullet points it makes it clearer that this is a rule that needs to be met. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. To find out when the change goes live, or if you have questions, please go to the Administrator's Noticeboard . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin names on English Wikipedia

This issue came up during the most recent RFA, where a nominee's name was entirely in a foreign language, I believe Asian keyboard letters/symbol. A valid point was raised during the (since withdrawn) nomination, in that if the alphabet or symbols of an English Wikipedia admin's name is not of latin characters, then in most cases, the admin cannot be pinged except via copy and paste, at best. And if a user has any issue with an admin whose name is not latin characters, numbers or symbols, then a user cannot adequately open a talk thread about that admin - not at Arbcom, any of the notice boards, or general talk pages. And what that means, is that it would be difficult to hold an admin accountable for anything, if the average user cannot input their name. Perhaps it would be best to address this issue now, and have it in writing somewhere. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

To ensure accuracy, I regularly copy and paste "unusual" or lengthy usernames when pinging editors. But I understand that this may be cumbersome or unknown for less experienced editors. I would favor a requirement that any candidate for administrator on English Wikipedia have a username consisting of the common keyboard characters regularly used for communicating in English. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That would imply that any user on any foreign language Wikipedia who wanted to become an administrator, even if they were already an admin on their home wiki, would be mandated to change their username purely for that purpose. I find that extremely problematic. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between a user who created their username on a foreign language wiki and a user who has never edited jpwiki changing their name to a single Japanese character. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Would this mean that Tóraí and Yamaguchi先生 would need to change their name or be desysoped as no longer complying with policy? Seems a bit harsh? Keeping in mind that usernames are also re-used across all language projects, I wouldn't want to rule out sysop access for a multi-project contributor whose username isn't on a standard English keyboard - especially if they are active on other language projects; doesn't sound like a good brightline rule. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be inclined to introduce a rule. The example of the recent RFA, where this alone provoked many opposes, is probably enough to put anyone else off. But yes it's a nuisance - I'm not going to track to the RFS to cut n'paste the name. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• People can oppose an RFA for literally any reason. We cannot and should not make policy based on opposes at one RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• As Beeblebrox notes anyone can oppose for any reason at RfA. That does not mean there is a reason that deserves weight. However, given how many people brought it up, it seems worthwhile to see if such a stance has community support (at which point it would of course deserve weight). As for me I agree with Xeno and Primefac. We should not be preventing people who would make good sysops but who register a username in a different language from helping us out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Wouldn't a declared alternate account using only common English characters alleviate any such concerns? Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I concur with Primefac, and oppose this suggestion. Also, a declared alternate account doesn't solve the issue; it would presume the person is frequently logged into the account enough so that they receive pings in a timely manner. It would also presume that the person wishing to ping them is aware of the alternate account. Even if it's posted on the admin's userpage, it's likely that few would be aware of it. I believe this is a corner case; scanning through the first ~100 at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active I find no administrators to whom this would apply. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not that users may use unicode in the user names, but that some folks are unnecessarily difficult to reach. The signature — Maile cannot be used to copy/paste, because it doesn't match User:Maile66 and there is no User:— Maile that redirects me to the right place. To get the user name, I have to ctrl-click on the user name, Copy Link, take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maile66 and then remove the scheme and host name, or click on your user name to go to your page and copy it from there. The example that was cited, where a user name is in a non-latin script, has a signature that does match, allows me to simply copy/paste the user name, making that user easier to reach than the proposer. Vexations (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the recent RFA where the community made it clear that this is a desirable thing, we should consider codifying this. SQL^{Query Me!} 14:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tolerating administrators with usernames that stray from 7-bit-ASCII while coming down like a hammer on RFA candidates who do the same has two effects: makes us big damn hypocrites, and teaches people to change their username only after they're promoted. —Cryptic 14:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think this should necessarily be a rule, but it is something that candidates with usernames such as this should keep in mind to try to come up with a way to make it less of a problem. Part of the issue at the recent RFA was that the candidate expressed what a lot of users evidentally felt was an unwillingness to work to provide a functional way around the issue, and had even switched their account name from a Latin alphabet name to a non-Latin alphabet one. As to copy-and-paste, my mobile phone, for instance, is almost impossible to copy-and-paste with and will not easily produce the character in question with that RFA. While this would really be instruction creep, RFA candidates with non-Latin alphabet characters in their usernames should really have a way planned out to not make it unduly burdensome on others. If you're putting a character like that in your username and are considering RFA, but not trying to create a work-around for people, then that raises questions about if you have the collaborative spirit generally needed to be a successful administrator. Hog Farm _Talk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• The relevant policy is WP:NONLATIN: There is no requirement that usernames be in English. Furthermore, contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet, but should bear in mind that other scripts are illegible to most contributors to the English Wikipedia, and sometimes the characters may not appear correctly. To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature. There was an RFC back in 2011 (Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 18#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames) which was archived without being closed. If anyone knows why we have usernames I would be interested in knowing the origin of the practice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  The origin of usernames is probably the Compatible Time-Sharing System. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• One of the early opposes in that RfA based their oppose because the candidate didnt have any activity on any other wikipedia. Even though not many people mentioned it, I think that was the reason they opposed. There are many other users with non-keyboard usernames who are active on multiple projects. It is not a wise idea to limit enwiki adminship based on username which is global (all wikimedia sites). However I always had an issue with article titles. Why do we have non english characters in article titles on an english encyclopaedia? Why Élodie Yung but not Дмитрий Медведев? Also per Primefac, and Xaosflux. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• I do not find this a good reason to oppose an RfA candidate, so I naturally oppose codifying this. Because of WP:SUL, usernames are globally unified across all Wikimedia projects. The English Wikipedia is a diverse collection of individuals, and imposing some kind of expectation that administrators should only have Latin characters in their username is unfair to editors who come from non-English backgrounds. If non-Latin characters truly hinder communication to the extent that a user cannot adequately open a talk thread about that admin - not at Arbcom, any of the notice boards, or general talk pages, then non-Latin characters should be disallowed in all usernames, not just those of administrators. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Definite oppose. There is no requirement that usernames use Latin characters, nor should there be.--Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• If there is anything to learn from 力's RfA, it is that "candidate has a username that is policy compliant, but I disagree with the policy" is an exceptionally poor oppose reason. —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Clear oppose, as a) per Mz7 it should be the case for all editors and b) it's globally restrictive and frankly, selfish (to those coming from other projects where it may be the norm). Also, cf. SUL, is it even possible?
  In other news, I'd be interested to know how—somewhat per Kusma—crats would have weighed all those !votes which had no basis in policy whatsoever; can we be reassured that they would be discounted wholesale? I admit, that would be *gulp* brave  :) SN54129 — Review here please :) 19:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  RFA isn't AfD where arguments have to be grounded in policy, as !votes are based on whether or not the !voter trusts the candidate with the tools. We don't have any policy on a minimum tenure or edit count to be an administrator, but I don't think anyone would discount a vote of "Oppose, editor has only been here a month and made 1000 edits". It's perfectly valid to say "I don't trust this user's judgement because they want to be an administrator but they chose a username makes them difficult to reach," whether or not you agree with that argument. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 02:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I probably would not vote against someone for a user name (or maybe I would, who knows), but to oppose because the admin's name is not accessible for some people, to me, that is a valid oppose. How a Crat weighs it, probably depends on the Crat, but I would be very disappointed if they (as a group) were to say they completely discount those votes. I also doubt it. Accessibility isn't a trivial thing, particularly since so many access Wikipedia with phones, and expectations for admin are a bit higher than for editors in other areas as well. It might not be the strongest reason to oppose (or support) a candidate, but it is a valid reason nonetheless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Brown is accurate here. I do not believe we should have a rule to prohibit them, especially due to the presence (and wanting the presence) of cross-wiki admins. But it also a valid oppose grounds - I suspect (!)voting editors are much more likely to oppose on these grounds where an editor does not have significant non english-wikipedia ties, in practical terms Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose’. Counterproposal: indef anyone who misspells my name. It is with ‘tstr’. Ok, enough joking. This should simply never be policy. I try to teach myself to copy/paste any username that I want to ping, the number of people that have maimed their username in signatures makes having to copy/paste usernames almost mandatory. I miss replylink, that pasted an {{rto}} automatically on reply unlike convenient discussions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• I do think, strongly, that administrators should have a username that people can easily use to contact them. If they don't, maybe that could be achieved by creating a keyboard-friendly name which redirects to their actual name, and using that keyboard-friendly name as their signature here. For some history: this very question came up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TLSuda, and I was one of several people who withheld support because their username at the time was ТимофейЛееСуда . A few days into the RFA discussion, he changed his username to TLSuda, leaving ТимофейЛееСуда as a redirect, and explaining the change as having been done "Due to a consensus of editors requesting (with very good reason)". I'm not suggesting that admins be REQUIRED to have a keyboard-friendly name, but they should recognize it as an issue; if they have a good reason for their non-standard name, IMO they should offer a keyboard-friendly alternative. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with sensible suggestion of MelanieN. The interests of other editors should be primary. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Inclusion of Administrative action review

ProcrastinatingReader made an update to this page yesterday to include WP:Administrative action review which was reverted by DGG with the edit summary there was no consensus to adopt this proposed process. I believe this summary to be incorrect as there was an RfC used to establish the forum. DGG's issue is that there was no subsequent RfC to approve how it operates. You can see more discussion of that here. As I believe the board has been approved by the community, and the generation of procedures is being formalized through typical Wikipedia methods for such boards I have reinstated the edit. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The removal of XRV from the policy was done by DGG after, in chronology: (1) he had said that the current, actual, XRV is an "illegitimate" (diff) implementation of XRV as emanating from the relevant RfC, and that it should probably be scrapped, (2) to reiforce this view, he had rhetorically asked what policy mentions XRV, implying there's none (diff), (3) he had been responded to with links to this policy as a form of a rebuttal (diff). To erase all mention of XRV from the policy under these circumstances was an example of WP:POINT.— Alalch Emis (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording I removed that includes this process was added 3 days ago by one of the people developing this process, and it is now being linked to in order to show there's a basis in policy, This is circular reasoning of the most obvious nature. . I note that on the talk p. it is claimed that there is consensus., but I think enough people disagree. I think the discussion should remain centralized on the procedure talk page unless it gets moved elsewhere. I'm not going to do another revert, until the matter is further determined, and I'm taking a break from the discussion for a day or two to diminish the prospects for escalating conflict. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note due to constant edit warring over this, the page has been protected - please resolve the issue here on talk. I'm sure it is at the The Wrong Version. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to reset protection (restore edit:SPP, indef) once this matter is resolved here on the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the actions of DGG are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point by getting rid of a noticeboard he doesn't like for some reason, although in fairness I've done that too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: feel free to list conduct issues at WP:ANI, where uninvolved admins are also welcome to reset the protection if the edit warring is over. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, I do not understand the reasoning behind full-protecting a page where admins are in conflict. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You can challenge the administrative action at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I giggled aloud. Izno (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: Because admins can get in trouble if they continue to edit war thru full protection, as people can start invoking WP:WHEEL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: basically that. "Edits" made by someone that happens to be an admin normally have the same qualities as those made by non-admins; but editing a protected page may only be done by admins in accordance with the protection policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam and Xaosflux. That makes sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think I agree with DGG here. While I'm still agnostic about AARV long-term - it certainly had some kind of consensus at the RFC, and there's a 33% chance that what is there now will morph into something helpful - right now, honestly, it is not ready for prime time. If/when it becomes ready for prime time, I'd support adding it here even if it ends up in a form I don't like. But it shouldn't be added here yet, or to AN/ANI headers (I hesitate to look to see if that's already happened, I expect I'll be disappointed) until it is actually functional. Right now, use of AARV should be optional, with both the reporter and the reported editors agreeing to try it. It should certainly not be added to the admin policy page while still in (optimistically) beta mode. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) It's clear there was consensus for something called "Administrative action review". It is not clear that what has been recently established at that title matches what there was consensus for though. It is also clear that a board of that name does not derive its legitimacy from this policy, as no proposal was made to modify it let alone consensus for that modification to be made. Given that the bold change to mention AARV here has been objected to, consensus needs to be established before readding it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated the noticeboard for deletion at MFD subject to a proper discussion and RFC on how/if the page should work. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And that, predictably, did not work but there is now discussion there of removing pointers to that venue while it is properly developed and the scope made clear. I'd suggest that rather than continuing to discuss the matter here, everyone who hasn't already comment over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

By "there", Beeb means Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions (said Floq modestly) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a clear consensus to remove AARV from places where it appears to be listed as a currently operating board, and based on that consensus I've temporarily removed it from the AN/ANI headers, and am in the process of removing a link to it from WP:VAND. I won't remove it from here yet (even though that consensus specifically mentioned WP:ADMIN), because I don't want to be accused by anyone of edit warring thru full protection. Regardless of whether you agree with the consensus or not, is there anyone here who would object to following that consensus by temporarily removing AARV from this page? Alternately, are there any uninvolved admins who would agree that the consensus on that page (Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Two suggestions) removes the need for full protection here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: as the content dispute that led to the protection was more appropriately moved to a discussion, the protection has been removed and the page may be edited as supported by consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Xaosflux:. Because I'm a little short of time the rest of the day to defend myself if challenged, I want to be 100% safe here (so I don't end up at AARV!). Does anyone think that the consensus linked above doesn't apply for some reason? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: I see you're editing the page now. Can you please answer this question? Xaosflux removed protection because there was a consensus on the page I linked to remove this. Are you claiming for some reason that this consensus doesn't apply? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think there was a consensus to remove it everywhere as you say Floq but there was a consensus, at that moment - and since it only happened for less than a day it's not a very robust consensus which could change as more people weigh in - to remove it from here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I think that the community-wide RfC which established XRV places higher in the hierarchy of consensuses than a talk page discussion. It seems appropriate that a policy should be updated by the way of such a high-level RfC. I'm of a position that even if the venue is currently inoperative (not saying that it is or isn't), the RfC and therefrom the policy create a norm that there be XRV. Instead of changing the policy by removing mention of XRV, what needs to change is furthering in practice what has been set out in order to have a functioning XRV. If over a relatively long period of time it proves that XRV isn't functioning, that'd be different. Then the policy would be dead letter. But we're not nearly there yet. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is an expectation that there will be an AARV. But the consensus I linked was that links in the main space should be temporarily removed until there was consensus that it was "live". Removing this link from this page in no way counters the consensus at the RFA RFC that such a board should be created. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Every major change is based on a bright hope for the future, that is of uncertain prospects. It doesn't matter how worked out something is right from the start. You can prepare for every eventuality and most of what you've done turns out bad, or you can prepare for few things and work things out in the process (or fail). It's always uncertain. Change puts a burden on individuals to make the best out of the situation instead of saying "this will be terrible". The change is here and now we need the hope. The page (now after the MfD even more certainly) exists, just not in the specific shape that is sufficiently widely agreed with to make it fully functional. The proposal passed. We're past the expectation stage. We're in the "work to make things good stage". What is had now is a norm that there be AARV. The policy merely records this. Everything gels better together when norm-setting sources congrue, i.e. the RfC and the policy. Instead of an argument in the style of "it isn't mentioned in the policy so it's illegitimate" (creating an internal conflict among such sources) it's much much better to have a harmony in this area that motivates a response of "the policy mentions it, but it isn't quite what it needs to be yet, so let's do our best to make it what it needs to be". More constructive overall. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Here's an idea of a compromise: Restoring one mention (instead of three), specifically the one in Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator noticeboards, and adding a custom notice like the one in Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator (maybe formatted as a {{notice|small=left ...) based on the text of the notice in the header ("...newly created process and norms are still being established"). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I could accept that. But after the recent edit warring, I'd strongly suggest getting a consensus here first. Maybe make a mockup and see what others say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

— Alalch Emis (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to the concept, but it's not really just the norms that are still being established - the whole purpose, structure and other fundamentals are still being developed. The simplest change I think of that would reflect this would to replace "a process page exists where administrative actions can be discussed and reviewed by the broader community" with "a process page is currently being developed to provide a place where administrative actions can be discussed and reviewed by the broader community". Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed protection because discussion was occurring instead of just a revert cycle, I didn't evaluate the conclusion of the discussion. In reviewing now, the target page (at least for now) says that the norms for it are still being established, and combined with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrative_action_review#Temporary_removal_of_links_to_this_page_from_directions_at_AN/ANI,_WP:ADMIN,_etc. - I'd call the for the immediate result for that target not be listed on the admin policy page, yet (nor going and expanding it to everywhere else that may be in scope of XRV (e.g. WP:ROLLBACK, WP:MMS, or any other permission policy page) until the other active discussions on that page conclude. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Or here, or anywhere appropriate - just not a revert cycle! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to @ProcrastinatingReader:'s updates. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus

WP:NOCON says "When discussions of contested administrator actions result in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted."

It appears (see comments at planned [but probably unnecessary] Wikipedia talk:Consensus/No consensus RfC 2022 and the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Consensus) that this is not true. In fact, whatever might have been true over a decade ago when it was added, the statistics of actual practice are probably exactly backwards now, and not just for AE work.

I have proposed removing this from NOCON, which is meant only to be a handy central summary of real practice and rules written elsewhere, and not to create new rules itself. (Please comment there if you have an opinion on whether NOCON should keep/remove this.) If you think that a rule about this subject ought to be written down somewhere, then perhaps this policy would be a sensible place for such a rule to be developed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: hmm, I suppose it may be directional? If the question is "Was WhatamIdoing's action appropriate?" a NC may lead to a reversal. If it is "Should WhatamIdoing's action be reversed?" a NC would be to let it be. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it. The way the question is phrased should not have any bearing one whether past actions get reversed. (If it did, then what would you do if the question said "Was this appropriate, or should it be reversed?")

All I'm certain of right now is that the existing statement is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Data on admin numbers

Hi! I was curious about what the current and historical ratios of number of admins to number of users are, but am struggling to find a page documenting this. Where can I access this data? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is only a marginally useful response, because I haven't actually checked it will work. But I would guess you could search for "crisis" in the WT:RFA archives, and any number of charts and graphs will pop up giving you what you want. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Might also be buried in here somewhere [4]. WP:Active admins shows who is acutally active, as opposed to who has admin tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding permission for using shool refusal assessment tool

I reviewed your resrch study regarding school refusal. I found that school refusal assessment scale used as a valid tool.i would like to use the same standardised tool in my reserch study .How can I proceed to take permission for it to access the original.can I get some information about that. can you suggest some relavent details regarding this.

Do u have any alternative suggession for it?which one is apt according to your openion. Im humbly approach you to know about my reserch study as it titiled above which will help me alot.

Your responds and time is greatly appreciated.Im hoping for your kind approval and support regarding this undertaking.Thank you for answering my queries.

Sincerely, Thanks & regards Geojinvin (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Geojinvin almost everything published on Wikipedia (the notable exception is images that are labeled for "fair use") may be freely reused elsewhere, provided proper attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for information on that topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Number of Admins

It is clear that the number of active admins is declining, and this is not good for Wikipedia. I resigned as an Admin as I am getting old and my memory is not good enough for Admin activity. I think it is clear that becoming an admin had become more difficult over the years. We need to revert that and make it easier. Alas, I do not have any idea how to do it, but it needs to be done. --Bduke (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We just did a look at our RfA process and while there was a fair amount of agreement on what the problems were, there was not any change (in my view) made to meaningfully address them. I still have hope we can head off the worst of it, but feel it's likely to take something going wrong for us to finally make changes that might significantly change how we go about finding and keeping admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

IMO 2-3 very expert experienced editors working together could get the whole thing 90% fixed, through only soft changes, plus making sure that the big change that you accomplished comes to fruition. Anyone want to call my bluff on that? :-) North8000 (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on administrator activity levels

Please see the following RfC, suggesting that we increase the minimum activity requirements for administrators to an average of 20 edits per year, over a 5 year period.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements

Worm^TT(talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help me understand why my contribution was removed

@Ohnoitsjaime had removed an external link I had added to coach Dan Hunt. The website lrt-sports.com has useful athlete reviews of coaches. These are good information for athletes that are considering to join the team. Jill Biden's Wikipedia page has a similar link to Ratemyprofessors. My son used it and found it helpful. Since it is an existing practice, I am unsure why my link to lrt-sports.com was removed. My son found Coach Dan Hunt's review on the website was useful so I thought to contribute to the profile. I feel horrible that I may have blacklisted a website when I only wanted to do good.

I like Wikipedia and I would like to continue to contribute from time to time. So please help me understand how I can do this better. Thank you so much in advance. Lccnj (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The only edit you've ever made to that page was just over a week ago to add a link to 2adays.com, and that link is still there. Did you mean another edit? Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

New admin activity requirement language

I'm a bit puzzled as to why the language that was used in the RfC as what we would use was not copied over verbatim into this policy. I see nothing in the close by Slywriter that suggests the consensus in that discussion altered that language. Courtesy pings to Worm That Turned as the one who wrote the original language and to Terasail and Xaosflux who have been doing the amending here. If the concern is about the two different timeframes of notifications I suggest we do that through footnote(s) rather than changing the language that was prominently discussed at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I made the change to add the specific timeframes to the inactivity section rather than put it in as a note, since the original policy specified the notification timeframe in the text and in my opinion policy should be clear. Hiding strict requirements of the policy in a note because it was not spelled out in the proposed new text did not seem beneficial. Just so the text would be identical to the proposal, although it isn't a big deal for me. Terasail^[✉️] 16:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply ping: User:Barkeep49 Terasail^[✉️] 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC's on policy are more about the "intent" behind a policy rather than the strict wording on the page (Excluding specific requirements given through policy). And can be phrased however in order to meet the community consensus on a given issue. Thats is how I see it. Thanks Terasail^[✉️] 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that policy RfCs are all about the intent rather than the strict wording. Even relatively minor changes to policies often take formal discussion rather than just BOLD editing. In this case clear language was presented with a thoughtful implementation procedure. We should be defaulting to that, as the latest expression of community consensus, rather than what you felt was important based on a version of the policy that now lacks community support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have to ask, in this instance is what is written lacking community consensus? I just combined what was in the yellow box with some text directly below. It was plainly written in the proposal and if there wasn't consensus it should have been discussed. I struggle to see how giving readers a better understanding by giving the "whole picture" is anything but an improvement just because it wasn't in a yellow box. Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, for instance, you kept the requirement that email be used for notifications when email was not mentioned anywhere in the RfC only talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: but surely the RfC updated policy but did not rewrite it, necessarily? I mean: does the fact that it did not mention email mean that email was overwritten, or that it was assumed to carry on into the new regime? Personally, I'd assume that if WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 intended to change something, it would have explicitly done so; and anything it deemed not to change would be presumed to continue as previously? Just a thought. SN54129 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 this is my point. It did explicitly do so with the language given as to what the new policy would be and again in the section about how the notifications would work. I didn't comment on it - I had bigger fish to fry - but I viewed that as a positive change as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 My original update was just to get something in there about the future change, my last one was reverting my undo since it was clearer; I agree the policy should reflect the RFC finding. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to say - I'm quite surprised, and a little disappointed, that the language in the RfC wasn't used. The RfC was clear that the relevant section would be updated to the text in the ivm box. Nearly 250 editors reviewed that proposal, and since there was no consensus against the language, nor even objection that I can recall - it should surely be assumed that there was agreement to that language - rather than language that was crafted by an individual based on their opinion of the closing statement. I'm not looking to kick up a fuss, since the text that has been implemented does appear to address my concerns - I'm just, well, surprised and a little disappointed. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned well lets see how it can be better? From that RFC I do not think that parts like This raises the bar for Administrator activity levels from ... belong in a "policy" (even though part of that section does have things that are to be incorporated such as the 50 edit notification rule). That is an explanation for the RFC, not an explanation necessary in the policy. Anyone interested in how the policy has evolved over time can use the history tab. Maybe we can start with things that are easier to agree on - are there any new functional changes that you think didn't make it over? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Functionally, not that I can see, no - but I note that it's taken so many edits to get to this point, when we could have just dumped the nice new text that was agreed upon in. There's some semantic issues, and I expect someone will come by sooner or later and change "criteria (1)" and "criteria (2)" to "criterion" because it's singular and wikipedians like to show off they know these words (look, I'm doing it now). I was talking about the text in the ivm box specifically by the way, "This raises the bar ..." was, as you say, an explanation in the RfC. I would personally have put clarification on timings in footnotes or in procedures pages for the crats - but, hey ho. Worm^TT(talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have edited (and self-reverted) what I think this should look like here. It is a style similar to other elements of this policy (paragraph oriented) verses the string of sentences that this version has. As Worm points out if the language had been deficient we'd have discussed it at a very widely attended RfC - that's just the Wikipedia way. I think only Terasail is saying that his BOLD change is superior, so absent further objection I'm going to restore the version I linked to in my first sentence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 "I don't like it" :) What don't I like? The notification components are policy requirements - they shouldn't be buried in a footnote. Also we do not send out warnings to someone that is "in danger of" (which really should be something like "approaching - it isn't a 'danger'" - but for those that actually have those issues. The new "at danger" part is for the 50 edit threshold. I also don't like using autonumbering for named (named by number) policy components. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's kind of a pity that specific notification periods are being written into policy rather than just put into procedures, so they can be more easily aligned. I think it would be simpler for everyone to understand to just have a superset of all notification requirements, regardless of the trigger. If that means three months, one month, and several days, no matter which criterion has been reached, so be it. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification?: "Edited for pay"

Before requesting or accepting a nomination [for Administratorship], candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia editors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay.

I didn't understand this. Why should WP be sensitive about working with people with professional editing experience?
Then I found this story about a WP employee (not a volunteer, though) who was asked to leave when it was revealed that she had edited Wikipedia (my somewhat shocked emphasis—LOL) on behalf of paying clients.
Is that what this means in this article? If so, it's obviously a legit concern, but perhaps it should be clarified. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Our terms of use state that editors must disclose paid editing. Stierch was let go because she didn't disclose, and admins have been desysopped for not disclosing. While (disclosed) paid editing is not strictly forbidden, the community has a rather dim view of paid editors (past or present) wishing to obtain the mop, mainly because they are concerned about potential abuse if a paid gig isn't disclosed. By making their statement at the time they create their RFA, it gives a bit of a litmus test of how much we can expect to trust the candidate. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is one of those weird situations where Wiki-language does not match "real world" language. Yes, we are referring to Wikipedia editing for pay - and we're not concerned if you have been a, say, newspaper editor in the past. I don't believe it needs to be updated though, because anyone who would be considering running for adminship should be well aware of the policies that Primefac has just pointed out and should understand the meaning of the sentence. Worm^TT(talk) 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with just making the simple change to "edited Wikipedia for pay" instead of "edited for pay"? We aren't correcting inaccurate wording of policy because RFA candidates should know the policy is worded inaccurately? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with clarifying the statement, as editors with all levels of experience read this page. Even someone familiar with the paid editing disclosure policy may be led to believe that a more stringent requirement is being asked of those requesting administrative privileges. They might think, for example, that revealing past experience as a professional writer is beneficial. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above and went ahead and changed it here. I also changed Template:RFA so that the wording matched - despite agreeing with Primefac that anyone who is qualified to be an admin should understand what is meant by editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Good change. We all know what we meant, but not everyone familiar with Wikipedia jargon does. Adding the clarification here doesn't change the policy, but it does make it clearer. --Jayron32 16:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Re activity - how can you detect it?

I get the basics and how the count works, and that the count is tied in with Cyberbot. The adminstats template covers deleted, blocked, pages protected, user rights, modifications. I think my account is all right for the foreseeable future. But ... how does the bot know if our contributions are on protected pages? Isn't that also admin work? A good example is that the queue templates at DYK can only be edited by admins. Does something like that figure into our admin tally? Just curious how that works. — Maile (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single "admin tally" as such. If you mean the bit in the policy about desysopping inactive admins, that won't come into effect unless you make less than 100 edits in five years or no edits for a year, and edits to protected pages are edits. Edits to protected pages aren't listed in the Cyberbot stats though. Hut 8.5 07:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Page move reverting

Over on Wikispecies we recently had a page-move vandal. Is there an admin tool for mass-reverting page moves? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Australia flag

Moved to Talk:Anthony Albanese § Australia flag

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Novem Linguae (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Revive page Govind_Dholakia with help of admin

Dear Respective Admin of wikipedia. Namaste.. We want to revive page of Govind Dholakia we came to know that one who is administrator only can revive or recreate this please help us on same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Brakshit23, if you think the person is notable, you should start creating the article in the draft namespace or in your sandbox and then submit it for the AFC review. If the review passes, contact the admin who protected mainspace title to remove the protection.

You should also read what reliable sources are?, biographies of living persons and notability requirements for biographies. --Baggaet (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank You Baggaet for the prompt attention and suggestion for the asked query. Certainly we are working on it. Also we will read suggested topics by you to broaden up our understanding towards wikipedia content. Thank You So much will surely ask for your help if needed Brakshit23 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to ask one question here, who is “we”? Canterbury Tail talk 10:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Me and my GF usually do update and learning wikipedia things together. That's why we Brakshit23 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brakshit23 then you should have separate accounts, please. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay Doug Weller.. Noted

Thanks Brakshit23 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy on seperate accounts? Because wouldn't tha clash with use of IP accoiunts, Personally I think if they wantto be responsible for each other's actions AND they are editing- then all power to them Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp see WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you tell if someone is an Admin?

How do you? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: On a user's contributions page, you can click "User rights" at the bottom. Admins will have "administrator". Anarchyte (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wakelamp, you can also install the markAdmins user script. Schazjmd (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also enabling Preferences>Gadgets>NavPopups will let you hover over a username and see how many edits they've made, how long they've been editing, and what userrights they have. Very handy tool. valereee (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

About WP:INACTIVE

Why is I JethroBT not on WP:INACTIVE? They have made no edits since June 7, 2021, are on WP:LOA/I, and have no log entries since the same day. JJMC89bot never seems to have put them on the list. Is this a bug, or is there a reason for this that I don't know about? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's ping the bot operator to let them know: JJMC89. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That account has a activity from June 2021, so they will appear in July 2022, the report gets run at the beginning of the month; while there is no required day for this to happen - in practice we only process these removals once a month so there can be a lag of up to 1month-1day. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's because I JethroBT has thanked several users in the last year, which technically counts as a logged action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Huh, WP:THANKS actions are excluded from the results when "All public logs" is selected. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That UI doesn't include all logs at once by design, nonetheless the log exists so it can be presumed that this contributor is not 100% inactive. There has never been very good agreement on what defines an "administrative action"; the new edit requirements policy starting next year will start encompassing admins that only do something like "thank" while otherwise inactive. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Some admins like Nev1 stopped editing but he does admin actions as recent as 4 days ago... Thingofme (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux can you point me to the 'new edit requirements policy". Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Wakelamp Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators#Criteria shows the criteria and the dates that they will be effective from. There's a link to the relevant RfC at the top of the same page too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How will the new edit requirement policy work? Will we start warning/giving notice from December 1, 2022 or wait until January 1, 2023? Thingofme (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The new requirements do not come in to force until January, and the new requirements require the appropriate notices to be given, so the first warnings will be sent out in January, the second set of mandatory warnings to be sent out in March, and the first admins desysopped for inactivity under the new criteria will be desysopped in April 2023. Primefac (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)