Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 49

< Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Thue in topic De-adminship request for Thue
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago66 comments27 people in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criterion 1 (total inactivity)
  1. G.A.S (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Oct 2021
Criterion 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Dwheeler (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Never
Criterion 1 (total inactivity) and Criterion 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Ssd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jul 2022

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Already processed below. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 11:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
For future reference, it would be handy (at least for those of us who can't remember off the top of their head which criteria is which) if future reports could include a link to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I was a little delayed and they beat me to it, usually have a bit more on these - will check if there is any other paperwork to update later today. — xaosflux Talk 13:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This is pretty pedantic, but I think the bolded Criterias above should be Criterions. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Another member of the Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Singular? club! Dekimasuよ! 23:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
"Last logged admin action: Never" is pretty impressive. I guess technically, they have at one logged admin action at Wikipedia:Deletion log/August 2003, but still. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any other admins who have managed that? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't think Lord Emsworth had but turns out he managed two deletions (one for a move, the other was his own subpage). Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
There are a total of 37 former admins listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/actions who have made zero admin actions, but a decent chunk of them are Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/temporary cases, or accounts that were admins so long ago that their actions weren't logged (the modern logging system only dates back to 2004). I did a crude database query and could not find any other current admins who have never used the tools (other that the User:Edit filter pseudo-account) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, there are some admin actions that don't get logged. DYK preps>queues, for instance. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Those get logged by Special:AbuseFilter/942, at least in recent times. But you're right that the database queries I used (and possibly Xaosflux's process to specify "last admin action") did not check that. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, very interesting. I've tripped that filter nearly 700 times lol... Valereee (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pppery correct, the notes above are just rough notes based only on "logged actions" - a full review of what could be argued as an admin action (via editprotected, etc) would be available should a restoration request be presented. — xaosflux Talk 14:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dwheeler shows what was needed to get the bits in the early days. Literally "Hi, I've been on Wikipedia for approximately a year or so. I'm interested in admin status primarily to help remove obvious vandalism." and four people commented without objecting. And that was RFA twenty years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems nuts now, but I guess we've learned a little about lifetime appointments, pro and con. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
That was a better system for its time than what we have now is for our time. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The sweet spot for RFA is somewhere between what it was then and what it is now, and I'd argue that it's closer to the former. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems like the normal evolution of a growing system, albeit the current structure is unsustainable, and truth be told it's mostly the community's willingness to only accept (relatively?) spotless candidates (which is quite an self-reinforcing paradox, because potentially easy-pass candidates are second-guessing their own perception all the time). --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Where can I find stats on the total number of admins over time? It seems that we desysop a number every month for inactivity or for cause, and are currently promoting 0-1 replacements. Not a new problem, but I'd quite like to see the stats over time. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:RFA by month as well as Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month; the latter page also has a graph of the "yearly change in the number of admins" though it only goes through Jan 2022 and thus misses the large drop in early 2023. Primefac (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The bot which maintains Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active, Wikipedia:List of administrators/Semi-active and Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive includes a count in the edit summary of the daily update, so you could see how many admins there were on a particular day by finding it in the edit histories of those pages and adding the three figures up. Hut 8.5 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Note also that desysopping someone who has not had a logged admin action in years is reducing the number of nominal admins, not the number of active admins. Note also that the 80/20 rule holds (20% (or less) of all admins are performing 80% (or more) of all logged actions), and there is a long tail down to admins performing few, if any, logged actions. Of the 892 admins currently remaining after the purges of the past year, 64 have not performed an admin action in the last 365 days. Now, unlike me (I'm 283rd on the list, with 76), many admins with low logged action numbers do plenty of things that are generally more or less reserved for admins, but are not logged, but I doubt very many of the admins with no recent logged admin actions are doing so. Removing the bit from editors who are not performing admin actions is not putting any discernible additional burden on the remaining admins. Donald Albury 18:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Wow, we all look like do-nothing slackers compared to ST47ProxyBot… Seriously, though, it’s trivial to find folks way down that list that do a hell of a lot of work. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes it gives us a trailing statistic, and we don't know what effect desysopping has on our reactivation rate. Though a reasonable assumption is that it reduces the likelihood of people returning. But measuring how the total number of admins drops is a rough indication of the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 06:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
One of my tables at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_stats covers active admins at the end of each year. I haven't updated it since 2015 but it covers the previous 12 years and could easily be extended. I'd be surprised if the last 8 years weren't just a very slow decline. Is that what you are looking for Dweller? ϢereSpielChequers 06:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
OK updated the active admins figure and it is direct at User:WereSpielChequers/Admin attrition. Not what I was expecting, though in hindsight some admin purges and Covid may have influenced things. I suppose the essential takeaway is that once you make someone an admin you have a significant chance that they will be here for a very long time. Whether the RFA process causes that or predicts that I leave for future researchers to dissect, but my hypothesis is that making someone an admin increases the chance of them still being active a decade or more later. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Correlation or cause? It is plausible that having the admin bit is an incentive to stay active, but it is also plausible that commitment to the project is a factor in being chosen to be an admin. But, having the admin bit has not been enough incentive to stay active for the ones being desysopped every month. I do know that an incentive for adopting Criteria 2 for desysopping was the occurrence of admins who rarely or never used the tools showing a failure to understand current standards for use of the tools when they did do so. I am saying that removing the admin bit from users who have seldom or never used the tools for years is not contributing to an admin crisis. Donald Albury 16:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
In every internet community there are always some people who stick around longer than others, but everyone will drift away at some point regardless of how much power, responsibility, recognition, status or other reward they get for their commitment to the community. If the community has a need for people with more power and/or responsibility than others (and Wikipedia does) then if the community is to survive there needs to be a pathway to that (in Wikipedia's case, adminship) for newcomers. Of course it's in our interests not to drive the old guard away before they naturally depart, but it is far more important to replace those who do leave and that is where we are failing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it is time we stopped thinking of ourselves as just an internet community. Our best analogues may be in off line volunteer communities, some of which have people involved for half a century or more. Sometimes with breaks of a decade or more for childcare and similar exigencies. That doesn't mean we don't need to suspend tools for the inactive, but maybe we need a different format RFA for their return, focussing on has this person got back up to speed and are they the same person as fifteen years ago. Of course that doesn't change the situation that some of the pre 2008 admins went through RFA to get Rollback or some other now unbundled feature, and if they've never used the current admin toolkit, in some sense they were more akin to what we would now consider a rollbacker or a filemover rather than an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 17:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just an internet community? Huh? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot of experience in the offline world with engaging volunteers that can be drawn upon (as well as experience from other online volunteer projects). Some effective approaches used by other projects may not be suitable with English Wikipedia's current set of operating traditions. The community ought to examine if what it gains with its current traditions is worth what it loses by being unable to make better use of proven approaches from other projects. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers Wikipedia is not just an internet community, but that is part of what it is, and that means we can learn from (aspects of) other internet communities and other projects of which one aspect is an internet community. However, when you say maybe we need a different format RFA for their return you get close to the point I was trying to make - the reason for the decline in the admin corps isn't that we're losing old admins, it's that we're not replacing the ones we do lose, and RFA in its current form is the reason we aren't replacing them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes we are a community on the internet. But in terms of user retention we are beginning to look more like some offline volunteer communities. We already have people who have been here twenty years. So it isn't just online communities that we might be able to learn from, we can also learn from offline volunteer communities that have experienced decades more than we have. 25, 30, 40 year old communities may not exist on the internet, but they do in real life. ϢereSpielChequers 09:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
They do exist, they're just not particularly common. It's not just forums from the 90s or even Usenet, there are some BBSes that are still hanging on. The underlying idea is nonetheless valid however. (Non-bureaucrat comment) 74.73.224.126 (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
However, when you say maybe we need a different format RFA for their return you get close to the point I was trying to make - the reason for the decline in the admin corps isn't that we're losing old admins, it's that we're not replacing the ones we do lose, and RFA in its current form is the reason we aren't replacing them. To throw a crazy idea out there, what if we allow ARBCOM to appoint admins? BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Entrusting a group of 15 users with the power to desysop users is already somewhat controversial, and only really works because the community retains the option to reverse a desysop through RfA, essentially working as a set of checks and balances. Because they can desysop users, allowing ArbCom to appoint admins (exclusively or not) gives them absolute power over the composition of the admin corps, which is something I suspect would get immediately shot down. An RfB by a sitting arbitrator failed just last year over seperation of powers concerns. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Giraffer: I don't think ARBCOM having that power is controversial; what I think is controversial is only ARBCOM having that power. However, per Izno's comment, it unfortunately appears that such a proposal has already been rejected. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The council of experienced persons appointing admins is not a new idea. Izno (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Izno: I guess I shouldn't be surprised; I assume it has been rejected? Alternatively, how about sortition? Every month, two random editors with more than three years tenure, more than three years without an unreversed block, and more than 2500 edits in the past year and 10000 in the past three years including 1250 and 5000 respectively in mainspace, are randomly appointed as admins. After a year has passed a discussion is opened on them; if there is not a consensus to remove the bit they remain an admin perpetually.
Specific numbers, criteria, etc would need significant discussion, but personally I think it would work per WP:NOBIGDEAL - although I would also be very surprised if a proposal to implement it received consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I can guarantee that proposal would fail if it didn't also exclude people who have ever been desysopped for cause (i.e. not inactivity), resigned under a cloud, or failed at RFA. Personally I'd also want to see some sort of explicit acceptance of the responsibility and that they'll abide by WP:ADMINCOND by the user concerned, and evidence of recent activity in the Wikipedia namespace.
Alternatively (ish) maybe something like 5 editors who meet the machine-measurable qualifications are randomly selected and presented privately to a group of trusted editors (maybe functionaries?) who are asked to say whether they would be okay with them being invited to become temporary admins. If there are at least 2 yeses and more yeses than nos after ~10 days, then they get invited (privately?). If they accept they get the bit temporarily, if they don't they don't.
I don't know how I would vote if either of these were proposed, but I have a feeling temporary adminship would be controversial. Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/temporary implies there has only been one temporary admin since 2016 and that was for testing a bug in 2018. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
We rejected sortition and failed to achieve consensus for temporary adminship at WP:RFA2021. Around in circles we go ... * Pppery * it has begun... 14:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
WMF legal won't allow anyone to have view-deleted without a individual community-vetting process (for legal liability reasons), so that's what's stopping "pick admins at random" or "make everyone over X an admin"-type schemes. More recently they've said they'd be open to reviewing that stance (I forget where/when). It might work if we unbundled (only deletion admins would need to be individually vetted), but there's still a strong contingent of editors that oppose unbundling. Levivich (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the council has been discussed if not rejected. There are generally three flavors:
  1. Have ArbCom do it. Opposition usually along the lines of Giraffer, and what has been general distrust of ArbCom in the past.
  2. Have the crats do it. Opposition usually along the lines of "they weren't elected to do it and there would need to be some sort of crat review prior to doing so" and "don't concentrate the power more" similar to ArbCom. (The first feels like reaching to me, but hey, welcome to Wikipedia.)
  3. Have another committee do it. Opposition usually along the lines of "do we really need more bureaucracy for this?" from memory. There might be some other reason too?
    1. Sometimes this flavor has "select the people to the jury randomly".
The third option's first disagreement is general to the problem, of course. Izno (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not to be overly negative here, but we've been chasing our tails on how to reform our sysop selection process since at least 2005, we're not going to fix it here and now. (Non-bureaucrat comment) 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I do tend to wonder if we really need to have 1,000 active admins like we did at the peak. Wikipedia in general has less activity than in 2007, and although we need to increase the pace of admin promotions to stay at our current level of activity, I think 500 admins is well within "good enough". casualdejekyll 03:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
It depends on level of activity, in practice most work in any given period is done by the 60-80 most active sysops, and we could get by with even less, but many hands make light work. (Non-bureaucrat comment) 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
AN increasingly has "help our space" posts. I would say we are not in a good spot. Izno (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Yep, can definitely attest to that. More generally there are, for example, 25 XfDs that have been open for more than a month and I've routinely found myself doing admin actions that are completely uncontroversial but days overdue and it seems that in some areas I'm somehow the only active admin despite having been an admin for only a week. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll see if I can close some of the CfDs, but I'm involved in quite a few of them. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
CfD is an unintelligible alien language to me, but I can handle some of the other ones. casualdejekyll 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Casualdejekyll, out of curiosity, what problems do you have with CfDs? The implementation of closures can be hard to do, but do you have a problem with assessing consensus? — Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Each area can have its own norms and nuances. I can think of some examples at AFD and RFD. I guess an admin could go in blind and close without that knowledge, as long as they were very receptive to vacating their close when it's objected to by pretty much anyone. But the other option would be participating there for awhile and getting a feel for it first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
(Just some person who wandered in) Yes, RfD has a severe backlog. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look at that, but it probably wont be until tomorrow (UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: It's been two days and you don't seem to have done anythingAny update?. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a somewhat combative attitude, Pppery. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
You're right. I've reworded to convey my actual point better, which was to remind Thryduulf of the above comment, not to attack him. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I am on holidays till Sep 1, without my laptop. I still manage to process speedy cfd’s, but processing non-admin cfd closures seems to be next to impossible. I highly appreciate people doing them, but i will only be able to touch the backlogs in two weeks. Ymblanter (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pppery in three words "real life happened". Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
We've had "only" 400-500 active admins for the entire five years I've been here (probably longer), and we've done fine AFAICT. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
We didn't exactly give out adminship like candy in 2005-2007 but if you were competent, had some edits, had some friends and fewer enemies, you had a good chance of getting in. That was probably Wikipedia's "Eternal September", and not coincidentally the Userbox Wars broke out soon after. That was probably also the high-water mark of the adminship is "not a big deal" mantra, though there were those of us even then who thought RfA was broken because it set too high a standard. At least one thing that's changed since then is that a lot of tasks that had to be done by hand are now automated in one way or another. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Done some more work on this including submitting a Signpost article it has a talkpage if anyone else is interested. ϢereSpielChequers 09:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting and detailed work on this, WereSpielChequers --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Just for linking/searching purposes, it's now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Special report. Graham87 17:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Royalbroil

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Royalbroil (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

  Done

I hereby voluntarily resign the adminship tools here on the English Wikipedia. I request to retain the following user rights: rollbacker, extended confirmed user, and autopatrolled. I do wish to retain adminship on Commons where I have continued to be an active contributor. Royalbroil 02:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for all that you've done as an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Desysop (Nosebagbear) - RIP

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have the unfortunate task of reporting the death of Nosebagbear, which came to us through ticket:2023090110003382. I have subsequently removed his administrator status. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow. They were editing very recently.
I'm hesitant to do it, but someone should be kind, and archive their talk page. - jc37 11:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree, I would, but I think an admin should do it, and preferably one who was close with TheBagBear, as he was also affectionately known. Before peeps start leaving messages. SN54129 12:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  Done, very sad to hear this. Ymblanter (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Ymb. SN54129 12:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#September 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Davodd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Dec 2020
  2. Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jul 2022
  3. Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Apr 2021
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
None

KnightLago

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

KnightLago (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Please remove the bit. It was fun while is lasted. KnightLago (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Please let us know if you need any of the advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I now find myself blocked as I edit through a VPN. Could someone grant me an IP Block exemption? Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Sure thing. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hog Farm (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

When I became an admin in January 2021, I was a college student with an internship and no real commitments. Today, I'm a burned-out CPA with a non-existent work-life balance and a wife. As much as it pains me to do this, I'm resigning the toolkit. I plan to take a step back, mainly just finishing up my current review/nomination commitments and shepherding my existing FAs and GAs, and hopefully sort some things out. I fully intend to return in some form, but I can't say when or if it will be as an administrator. Could be a couple months, could be much longer. If I could retain page mover, extended confirmed, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, it would be helpful for the low-level maintenance activities I intend to continue with. I don't think I'll need autopatrolled, as I won't be writing article near as often, and I don't plan on using the NPR userright. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done what I can from a purely-administrative perspective. Thank you for your service, and I hope that things improve. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
(Non-bureaucrat comment) I was worried to see your rights changes pop up on my watchlist. I'm sorry to hear about your resignation, but I hope your offwiki life flourishes and that you can come back to the project soon as well. Thanks so much for all you've done, and it's been an honour. Vaticidalprophet 01:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request temporary interface administrator and administrator rights for the purpose of integrating and deploying the Adiutor tool to your Wiki. I would like to have these privileges for a duration of one week. You can find comprehensive information about Adiutor through this link. I believe that having these privileges will greatly assist in the successful adaptation and deployment of Adiutor, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient process throughout the integration. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 08:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of admin permissions (JamesR)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per WP:INACTIVITY, I'd like to request removal of my administrator rights. Unfortunately, due to personal health reasons, I have been unable to support the project as much as expected. I will remain contactable for bot related queries and the odd edit, and hope to return in a greater capacity someday soon. Regards, — JamesR (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Desysop request (Mark Ironie)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Please remove my admin tools. Mark Ironie (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC) It's a little confusing that the instructions say "Resysop". I'm assuming it's a typo. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mark Ironie: Not a typo exactly, it just looks like the edit notice has instructions for resysop requests but not desysop requests for whatever reason. 28bytes (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the edit notice to include desysop requests. Feel free to revert if out of process. SkyWarrior 03:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Back to being a regular editor. The hit to my reputation from this debacle may make it... difficult in some situations. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Desysop (CorbieVreccan)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
CorbieVreccan (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I guess this is the template? If you could add the other stuff that was bundled in, that would be helpful. But I'd rather avoid the stress right now. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux Talk 19:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Third-party VANISH request

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments13 people in discussion
I ask the 'crats to forgive me for closing this discussion on "their" noticeboard, but it seems clear that is the best result at this point. (the TLDR answer is "no") Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Anne Ammundsen, blocked indef for several months, has decided she'd rather leave the project than be unblocked. She would like to have as much of her connection to it removed, including a rename (after which we can do the other two, easier parts: RevDel'ing any edits that mention her name and real-life identity, and deleting her user and talk pages. Can someone here take care of the rename? The kind that redoes every sig she's left? Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(non-Bureaucrat comment) @Daniel Case: WP:VANISH makes clear that the process is only for users in "good standing", and it's already been pointed out several times on Anne's talk page that she doesn't qualify for that. My concern would be that if she returns as a sock puppet later on, it makes it harder to connect the dots. Also, again as per WP:VANISH, I don't think there's ever a vanishing that includes rewriting all signatures, that would be a huge undertaking that would spam people's Watchlists and also make past conversations harder to follow. Similarly with "revdelling any edits which mention her name" - this is also airbrushing history. I think if Anne wishes to leave Wikipedia she should do just that. Walk away and move on with her life, but there's no need for a courtesy vanishing, other than blanking her personal user and talk pages. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Daniel Case: This user has made 2673 edits to talk pages since 2007 and presumably signed their real name in every single one; there's absolutely no way we can remove all that, even if we make an exception to the usual rule that vanishing is only open to users "in good standing". Rev-deleting everybody who ever mentioned her username would also cause huge disruption and deleting user talk pages is only to be done in exceptional circumstances. This doesn't look one to me.
Also, why is this at BN? – Joe (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Because I thought this might be something a 'crat could handle. I'll just go and delete her user and talk pages then. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
What I was thinking about was what you see here, for example ... a vanished user's sig from 14 years ago replaced with "VanishedUser XXXX". I thought that, at least, could be done.

I mean, speaking as another user who uses their real name, I think that our privacy, should we decide to assert it, should be as equally protected as someone who does not. Anne feels that her time here has adversely affected her mental health and reputation and that having a continued, easily discovered connection to the site will make it that much harder to move on with her life as you suggest—ought that not to count for something?

I do agree, though, that it might not be possible to remove other mentions of her name. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a question of what we choose to do or not, it's about recognising the reality and setting people's expectations accordingly. Even if this user were renamed and all her old signatures were changed (which to be clear they can, there's just no automated process for it), it'd still be in the page history. And even if we decided we could sacrifice the histories of god knows how many pages to revdel them all, it'd still be plain to see in countless Wikipedia mirrors, forks and backups that we have no control of.
Basically your privacy here isn't protected, whether you assert it or not, whether you use your real name or not, because everything we contribute is published on the internet under an open license. Sometimes people expect us to be able to honour GDPR-style requests to remove "personal data", but it's not like that: it's more like writing a book, then a few years later asking the publisher to track down every copy and cut your name out of it. – Joe (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Yikes. Unfortunate, but a good example of why people should not use their real name on the internet, unless they've thought it through. Pecopteris (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Obviously I have a lot of sympathy for the individual in question, she sounds like a very genuine person, albeit that coming to Wikipedia with an agenda of rewriting the narrative concerning a 200-year-old ancestor is rather misguided. (I know nothing about Asgill and Washington, so perhaps Anne's entirely right and recorded history has it wrong, but as COIs go this is rather blatant). But attribution and history is important on this project. Anyway, @Daniel Case: just to note, if I've understood correctly the declined unblock requests should remain on the user talk page per WP:BLANKING. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
So we can't even delete the talk page? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Correct. Dropping a {{courtesy blanked}} is about as good as it gets. Primefac (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
No (to the majority of the ask from the OP), per Wikipedia:Oversight § Privacy of account renames. Primefac (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to sufficiently solve this problem by performing the rename and then manually going through all of this user's 1,671 talk page edits, 565 user talk page edits, 99 Wikipedia talk edits, and 8 template talk edits to change the signature on those comments to the new name? Would that be sufficient for her liking? Useight (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If she wanted to do that, and were not blocked, she could do that. We will not do that. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@Useight do note the Streisand effect is a thing. Changing that many edits would draw very significant attention, which is the exact opposite of what is desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. A regular editor did indeed go through their entire talk page history and change their sigs, around 10 (?) years ago and all it did was draw attention to themselves because it pinged everyone who had any of those pages on their watchlist. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of the Streisand effect, this discussion certainly isn't doing the user in question any favors. It seems unlikely that any action will be taken as a result of this discussion (aside from maybe deleting her user page), so perhaps it should be speedily collapsed and archived. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If she wanted to do that, and were not blocked, she could do that - my impression is this isn't something people were supposed to do. There's this wording at WP:CHU: Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename, although that could also be interpreted to be a procedural limitation (i.e. the rename won't do this, without prohibiting anyone from doing so manually). Still, if Ser Amantio decided to change his name, or even me for that matter (in terms of edit counts), that seems rather unreasonable to go back through thousands of archives. And, as pointed out, it's also entirely transparent so long as it's not revdelled/oversighted and Streisandy to such an extent that even if we do allow it, we might want to document discouragement. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
we might want to document discouragement. this is not a bad idea. WP:STREISAND exists, but its a short essay (written by Ritchie333) discouraging the placing of "(redacted)" tags in ANI threads. We (the Oversight team) do have boilerplate text we can send when someone asks us to e.g. remove their IP address from ancient edits that would make a decent start to such an information page.

All Wikipedia content that is in a public log, such as a page history, is available in periodic database "dumps" which are free for downloading to anyone. With the age of your request this means that while we can remove it from the live version of Wikipedia, we cannot remove the edit from the internet entirely. The consequence of this is that if you have a serious concern over someone trying to invade your privacy, often times removing the edit, IP address or username has the potential to escalate the problem since the information is available elsewhere and may cause a greater concern for privacy than you had in the beginning.

I'm not sure who wrote it to correctly attribute (Risker might know). Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
It was originally written by Keegan back in 2010, and it is as true today as it was then. I don't want to violate WP:Beans but it's not hard to find plenty of information about our users even without the dumps, and using a RL name simply makes it easier. Risker (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As long as they're following WP:SIGLINK, if someone wants to (non-disruptively) update their signature, I don't think it matters much (per WP:UNC). And while I agree that the Streisand effect is a concern, I could see how trying to minimize bot-scraping might make it worth the effort. But I also agree that someone should not expect this be done for them as some sort of a service. We're a volunteer site, after all. - jc37 21:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I would emphasize the Streisand effect. Admittedly, I Googled the user in question after reading this thread, and would have had no idea who she was otherwise. At this point, I feel bad for her.
Since there's a consensus here that we won't be scrubbing her name from the website, I think this conversation is doing the user in question more harm than good. I second the suggestion to speedily collapse and archive this discussion. Pecopteris (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Temporary desysop request (Tamzin)

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to stow the mop for a bit, to avoid stressors and distractions as I deal with a pressing off-wiki issue affecting someone close to me. This situation could last anywhere from days to months, although, regardless of what happens, I don't intend to request resysop for at least 2 weeks. I'll probably continue to do some content and technical work, so if possible, I'd like to retain/regain the three rights I find useful for such work: autopatrolled, page mover, and template editor. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, 28bytes, and thanks to the whole bureaucrat team for all the work y'all do. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Resignation (Rschen7754)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Rschen7754 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Please remove my administrator rights.

After 18 years, it has become clear to me that there are significant disagreements between where this site is going and where I believe it needs to go. Considering that I need to be spending less time on Wikipedia due to a career and personal life, it seems better to part ways and move on. I thank those that I have worked with and wish them the best. Rschen7754 00:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sad to see this and hope you find your way back. But even if you don't, thanks so much for all you've done and I wish you all the best as you focus on your career and personal life. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Echoing what Barkeep said. I vaguely recall that you and I got off to a rocky start, but that was smoothed out many years ago and I've known you to be a good admin and a great Wikipedian. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Barkeep, it's always a shame when a good Wikipedian leaves the project and it's even worse when good Wikipedians feel they are driven off the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Desysop request (TonyBallioni)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

TonyBallioni (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Please remove my sysop flag. I've also requested removal of my functionary flags at meta. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this. While in some ways I'm sorry to see this, I think we all understand the time constraints of RL. Thank you for all you've done on-wiki. And I wish you well : ) - jc37 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Likewise, personal regret from me to see you give up these. All best wishes though to you always. Lourdes 04:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and best wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Done with thanks for all you've done here, and best wishes for the future. ϢereSpielChequers 05:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove admin bit please (Dennis Brown)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm in the middle of a major move, and need to give up the bit for security and because of time. I want to keep the advanced tools, PM, NPR, PCR, rollback, as well as IPBE, as I will be roaming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Interface admin request (Pppery)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Pppery (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Since Category:Wikipedia interface-protected edit requests seems to be chronically backlogged, I guess it's my duty to help out there. I am already an interface admin on MediaWiki.org, and thus already have 2FA enabled, and believe I have sufficient understanding of JavaScript, CSS and Wikimedia wikis' privacy expectations to fulfill the role. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Standard 48 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Resysop request (Tamzin)

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments12 people in discussion

I was desysopped on my request on 22 September. The IRL situation that required my full attention has, thankfully, stabilized, and I've taken a few additional weeks to work on content and remind myself what I love about Wikipedia. I'm not in a rush to dive deep back into admin work, but I'm sure I'll find things to do here and there (famous last words...). I was not involved in any controversy at the time of my desysop; I had been involved in an ArbCom case request a bit before that, but it was closed by motion five days before the voluntary desysop, without any discussion of adverse action against me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Standard 24h hold in place. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I see no problems with this request. SilkTork (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Has it really been a month? Regardless, welcome back! BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  Done -- Amanda (she/her) 02:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thus ends the longest period of time between resysoppings *ever* ... at least since the bureaucrat role existed. Graham87 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to call that a "fun" fact, but it's certainly interesting. Here's to hoping it remains the longest period of time :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Having looked at the archives, there were no requests (successful or otherwise) for resysopping between Siroxo at the end of February and Tamzin yesterday. If you want a shorter gap before the next one you'll have to convince one of the (by my count) 57 people listed at [[1]] who have made an edit within the last 12 months to ask for the bit back (although not all would be eligible, e.g. I've not looked whether they've made 100 edits in the last 60 months nor when their last admin action was). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Andre Engels, who was desysopped in 2004, has made over 100 edits in the past 60 months. I suspect they won't meet the "last admin action" requirement, but the idea of someone who was desysopped so many years ago asking for the bit back is mildly amusing... BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a "last admin action with 5 years" requirement for those who voluntarily relinquish the tools (as opposed to having them removed for inactivity) -
  • WP:RESYSOP says If a former administrator has been administratively inactive (defined by zero logged administrative actions) for a period of five years or longer, and the removal was for inactivity, they should be successful in a new request for adminship to have the permission(s) restored. [emphasis mine]
  • WP:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools says In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request.
All that is required is one more edits in the last 12 months, 100 edits in the last 60 months, and no period of 2 or more years of total inactivity between desysopping and the resysop request. Although if the is doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the admin tools 'crats are required to come to a consensus before flipping the bit. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in theory if someone was sysopped on 15 January 2001 at 0 edits, resigned uncontroversially off-wiki the next day, made their first ever edit on 2 November 2019 (the eve of the dawn of "lengthy inactivity" for voluntary resignations), and made one subsequent edit on 2 November 2021, then they would still have right of resysop under Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of admin tools, at least if they edit actively for a few months to satisfy the final bullet point. I wonder what the actual lowest edit count is for someone with right of resysop. (Graham?)
@Thryduulf, though, I think you've undercounted the number eligible for resysop. There's 108 at that page listed as "active", i.e. have never met the definition of long-term inactive. A ctrl+f for |Related gives a rough number of 21 under-a-clouds. Then there's 33 active users who were desysopped for criterion-1 inactivity; many desysopped under criterion 2 are probably eligible too (since none could hit the 2-year limit, and many will have at least 1 admin action in the past 5 years). Then I think precisely 1 vanished admin who's not at 2 years yet. So 121 with right of resysop is a rough upper bound, with the actual number probably a bit lower. Considerably lower number than I expected, actually. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
First guess toward your question: RasputinAXP, with either 5,897 (per the edit counter at the top of the contributions) or 7,371 (per xtools) edits. I wonder why the difference. I looked through a bunch of other old resignations and all of them either had more edits or hadn't edited for more than 2 years. I believe the 2-year inactivity rule is retroactive, so your hypothetical person wouldn't be eligible for resysopping, but not that it matters. And I don't think the modern concept of admin accounts existed until sometime in late 2001 or early 2002. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Xtools includes the number of deleted edits in total edits. The edit counter at the top of contributions counts only live edits. I do note a variation in number of live edits between the two, but that may simply be a reflection of frequency of updating data on both of those separate software formats. Risker (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
They're different numbers as they are two different means of counting edits: the so-called "system" edit count which is a tally system used for performance reasons, as opposed to running a live query on the database. More info at mw:XTools/Edit Counter#Edit counts. — MusikAnimal talk 01:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a little bit complicated. Early on there was one shared sysop password that was given out rather freely. The assignment of sysop to accounts came sometime later during Phase II if memory serves; even then given the rather sharply limited discretion and substantial cultural differences I would hardly call the concept modern. If instead you are speaking in a technical sense, the current setup of rights and groups really only comes in to place with MediaWiki 1.4 though to some degree it's always going to be a matter of definitions. (Non-bureaucrat comment)2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E047:9933:30E4:2382 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed re the history of early admins. As for people theoretically eligible to be resysopped with low edit counts, I just happened to run a query about admins with lowest edit counts in 2022, before the 5-year rule came into effect, after an offwiki conversation. One of the first users on that list, Sheldon Rampton, has 1,054 edits, made an admin action in 2019, but was desysopped for making less than 100 edits in five years (and still hasn't done so), but if they made enough edits they probably wouldn't pass the grade here. As for users actually eligible, I nominate Ssd with 5737 edits per the system edit count (that's the one I usually use to measure these things as it's also used by the list of Wikipedians by number of edits). Graham87 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Tangentially related: I've just restored an old list of admins by edit count to Wikipedia:Historical archive/List of administrators by edit count after this conversation. Graham87 (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remove interface admin (TheresNoTime)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
TheresNoTime (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Hi 'crats, looks like I've not used the IA right that much — I don't see any pressing need to retain it, so please remove my interface admin rights. Many thanks! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#November 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jul 2022
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Mairi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Sep 2012
  2. RockMFR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Apr 2023
  3. Somno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jan 2022

Requesting removal of my tools (Lourdes)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Requesting bureaucrats to kindly remove my admin tools, post the filing of the Arbcom case here. I understand this would be under cloud. Thank you in advance. Lourdes 04:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done (by AmandaNP). — xaosflux Talk 09:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I got pinged last night, but barely had the energy to comment here. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Desysop request (Ajpolino)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ajpolino (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Hi all, a busy period in real life has reduced my normal editing, and zeroed out my (already minimal) admin activity. I'd appreciate a desysop to reduce the chance of me accidentally clicking something disruptive. I hope to be back when things stabilize and I can no longer resist closing AfDs or some such nonsense. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. As per usual, let us know if you need any advanced perms. Primefac (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#December 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrator is being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. PBS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Mar 2021

Sysop bit restored, please

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Requesting the sysop bit be restored after the standard 24 hour waiting period. Previous request [2] I don't expect to be extremely active for some time (just moved to another country) but the tools would be handy and I have secure internet access now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Congrats on the move. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of a crat RfA moderating decision

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments12 people in discussion

Primefac has indicated he has received multiple editors asking about a question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clovermoss - see crat note in the general comments and comments on the talk page. As there doesn't seem to have been any notification to the other crats about this I thought I would post here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here for review. I am not at all a fan of people grilling candidates on their religious beliefs at RfA, for reasons I imagine would be obvious. That said, the candidate has answered the questions, so I think any striking at this point would be counterproductive. Other ’crats may see it differently, of course. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The bureaucrats have (in cycles) received criticism for doing either too much or too little as "clerks" of RfA, making it very difficult to know when something is over the metaphorical line and when something is distasteful but acceptable. I think this is a borderline case, and while I did not include it in my reply to Rhododendrites I am still not sure I made the best call at the time.
Bradv suggested on the RfA's talk that we prohibit this type of question in the future, but I worry that we'll be in exactly the same situation the next time a "gotcha" question is asked that isn't explicitly prohibited by a theoretical list of "questions you may not ask a candidate". If we are going to be policing the types of questions people may ask, then we should have a mandate for when to strike/remove/redact questions - something which we currently do not have. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand this was a tough call, and I don't disagree with your decision based on our current rules. But yes, I'm suggesting we should have an explicit list of things that are inappropriate to ask about. It should be a short list, and it should be enforced judiciously (some might even say bureaucratically). – bradv 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I would say this is the consensus for crats to clerk, which by my reading would include questions. I am gobsmacked that crats, a group that is selected for their extreme trust and discretionm, thinks that candidates have more responsibility for questions than them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree with you here. Per that discussion, crats should clerk and other editors (including non-crat admins) should not clerk, I think even to move comments to the talk page, other than in unambiguous IAR cases of course. That seems fine, and in line with the fact that each crat was explicitly elected with this sort of thing in mind. I would oppose an explicit list of dos and don'ts for the same reason. Crats are trusted to make the right calls, and any prescriptive list may be too tight or too loose - everything is contextual.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
So you don't think crats should remove any questions? We choose crats for their ability to judge and implement community consensus, so what's the consensus on which questions should be removed? – bradv 16:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Just be clear that a crat removal such as this can be restored by the candidate if they really want to answer it. That would reframe "all questions are optional" to make the question itself optional, and not just the answer. Removing it by default means the candidate isn't under pressure to answer something they don't want to answer for the remainder of the nomination. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
If I were a candidate I would never restore anything removed by a crat. This is a straght way to oppose pileup. Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair point. But if the question were collapsed with a message along the lines of Inappropriate question collapsed. Candidate retains the option to answer or not would change the default, as Rhododendrites suggests, while still preserving an option, if a candidate wanted to. I believe that some ArbCom election commissions have done something similar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
At my RfA I restored a question that had been removed and oversighted. Of all the things I did that proved controversial, that wasn't one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky. Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
In the past we have had opposes based on userboxes about religious views or lack of religious views, so there is precedent, though not one I'm comfortable with. This is a question about an article that the candidate has made 100 edits to. I would be horrified if people started asking questions on religion and politics at RFA. But here we have an RFA candidate who is being asked about potential bias re an article they are active on. It happens to be an article on religion, but this is more analogous to an article on a canal restoration project or nature reserve where an RFA !voter is asking the candidate about their connection to a specific article they are active on. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see the concern in the questions that others seem to. It's a COI question, and it is appropriate to be asking a potential admin to reassure the community regarding their potential or actual COI. They say on their user page that they were raised a Witness, and that the Witness article is one of their main editing interests. I am one of the minority who actually favour people writing about topics in which they have some close experience and knowledge, but I do understand the general concern that the community hold about this issue.
As regards having a list of topics that cannot be raised in a RfA. I don't think we should be adding to RfA anything that we don't already have regarding civility and behaviour on other pages in the project. The notion that we can ask someone a question on an article talkpage, but we can't ask the same question on an RfA doesn't feel right. From discussions, I gather that the concern that prospective nominees have is not that someone is going to ask them a personal question, but that someone will raise an issue that they are not proud of. I think the inhibitor is not the rude or insulting question, but the pertinent and appropriate question. I think what potentially hold many back is the fear of loss of reputation when that ugly argument from last year is brought up, during which some inappropriate things were said. SilkTork (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for RfA closure

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Paine Ellsworth has withdrawn from WP:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 2. Would a 'crat please close the RfA? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of my admin rights (Julia W)

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Julia W (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Hey, it will be a while yet before I have the time or energy to contribute to WP, so please go ahead and remove my admin rights. Sorry to have abandoned the project; it won't be forever! I'll be back someday.^^ Thank you. Julia\talk 12:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've done this for you. Let me know if you need specific perm that you had before included with the toolset. Thank you for your service. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Could I still have rollback, please? Julia\talk 12:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. :) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Time to hand in my admin hat. (Marasmusine)

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sadly I do not think I can be as active as I once was. I am proud to have been a wikipedia administrator for as long as I have - 16 years! I've raised a family of 2 children in that time! A decade ago I was much more involved in administrative tasks but I can't commit the time anymore, I cannot keep up with the minimum editing requirements. The lessons I have learned from my time on Wikipedia have been valuable - assuming good faith, keeping my cool, and so on - traits I have retained as a role as admin in other wikis and online in general. Thank-you to everyone, especially those in the videogame wikiproject.

Edit: There are still one or two pages that I regularly check for vandalism, vandalism that is particularly targeted towards me, and I have been using the visibility tools to dissuade this. I don't know if it is possible for me to keep that tool? Marasmusine (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Unfortunately deletedtext is not available for anyone other than admins. If you need any advanced perms, though, please let us know. Primefac (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thankyou Primefac. Marasmusine (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove INTADMIN from Izno

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Izno (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Hi, please remove my int admin permission. Taking a break. Izno (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Desysop (Ancheta Wis)

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Ancheta Wis (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I am being asked to resign adminship. Is it appropriate to request a break? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, we can desysop you at your request, and according to convention we do not decide at the request point whether the desyop was being done "under a cloud". However, given the circumstances, should you later request the tools back, there would be a discussion as to if these circumstances are "under a cloud". If you comfortable that such a discussion would take place, and that you may not automatically be granted the tools back on request, then I would proceed with the desysop. SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, and I trust the process. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  Done — That's been done for you Ancheta Wis. Enjoy some stress free editing, and thank you for your long service to the community. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure request

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few minutes ago an RfA was withdrawn, could one close it? Toadette (Merry Christmas, and a happy new year) 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On it, thanks. For reference, withdrawn RFAs are not time-critical. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Successful RFA

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Hi Team! This RFA officially went into a 'pending closure' status. Given that the result was 196/0/0, I went ahead and just closed it for you. When convenient, could you modify Robertsky's user rights accordingly? :-) Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go ahead and quote the top of this page about this... If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats, and all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Ev'rybody wants to be a 'crat. Primefac (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Primefac - LOL! Okay, that was pretty good... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
👏👏👏👏👏 Very good! - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Oshwah maybe you should try applying for RFB, I'm sure you'd pass very easily. Just something to consider. 80.42.196.251 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been approached a small handful of times with that suggestion. I'm honestly not sure where I'd stand, but I'm definitely open to considering it someday... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Eh, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. The pay sucks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
You all get paid? And you didn't tell anybody? <raises my hand> (and in my best tattletale voice) - Teacher, Teacher, bureaucrats get paiiiid. - jc37 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#January 2024

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Ev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Aug 2011
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Cobi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Oct 2022
Have we thought what will happen to Cluebot III if Cobi is desysopped? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
None of the bots in the cluebot family are admin bots and they have an active maintainer, Rich Smith -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
And DamianZaremba, although he doesn't edit all that much, he is always looking after the ClueBots - RichT|C|E-Mail 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah okay. I have updated User:ClueBot Commons/Userpage to point to the right people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a couple edits too. I think most of the pages now point to Rich Smith, DamianZaremba, and User talk:ClueBot Commons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I am still around, just not that active. I still see things and pings. The bots have people that look after them, and I am still reachable, too. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 08:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Deceased administrator, Anthony Bradbury

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have removed admin permissions from Anthony Bradbury. I can confirm his death because both his son posted on his talk page, but also I have had Tony as a Facebook friend for over a decade and have confirmed his death with his family.

Tony was my RfA nominator back in 2007 and it pains me to know that he has died. He was a good man and, from what I know of his personal life, a downright cool guy. He went peacefully at the age of 80. Acalamari 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request for Moondyne

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please desysop my account as I am taking an extended break. Many thanks. Moondyne (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Please let us know if you would like any of the advanced perms in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Redaction requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red-tailed hawk

Latest comment: 11 months ago27 comments11 people in discussion

Since this RfA is about to close, I do want to bring these two comments (1 2) by GhostOfDanGurney to the attention of the 'crats. I think that aspersions about the candidate should be struck (which I requested he do himself, to no response) before the discussion closes. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I know we tend to allow a looser interpretation of what is and is not an incivil personal attack during an RFA, and that we generally only strike sock comments, but I have to agree with Leeky here. Such suggestions are way over the line. Leeky's linked request to strike them gives the appropriate context as to why. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I removed those comments. I know RfA is generally seen as a free for all, but I don't think those comments should be immortalized on the RfA, even in a struck form, and I removed those comments per our regular rules of talk page conduct. Galobtter (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I was reverted. I don't wish to get into an edit war about this, so I'd appreciate a crat taking the same action. Galobtter (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
(comment in non-admin capacity) I disagree that this is a 'crat matter. It is a straightforward admin matter. An uninvolved admin should block Dan and reverting user Lightburst for personal attacks. This isn't even a tough call. A counterbalance to the strictness of WP:CHILDPROTECT is that we must be very strict about aspersions invoking it. Otherwise it becomes a politicized cudgel with which to attack opponents, rather than a shield for vulnerable young editors. Shame on both Dan and Lightburst. This is utterly disgusting. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I would've done so if I hadn't !voted support in the RfA. Galobtter (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
As would I, but it is within the jurisdiction of the 'crats to curb hostility at RfA and they should do so. I have no objection to an uninvolved admin taking action as a straightforward user conduct case, but I would prefer that a bureaucrat shoulders the responsibility they've been charged with for RfA in particular. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't really like the notion though of "crats can clerk RfA" becoming "only crats can resolve RfA issues". Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm turning into a skeleton waiting for the 'crats to resolve any RfA issues. Maybe we should be broadening that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • If I am reading this correctly, and I think I am, given the consensus of admins here about how inappropriate it is, I think it is appropriate for involved admins to take action, and put it up for review in due time. Admins should not just wait around indefinitely. I suggest admins take action per WP:BLP, RD2 and potentially OSPOL2. If consensus shifts the other way, no harm done. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    I normally wouldn't bother commenting here and I'm reluctant to do so, but if this discussion is being used to measure consensus I'd like to make it known that I also think the comments are wildly inappropriate and should be removed. I agree that they're bad enough that they merit a very stern warning at a minimum. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    If the comments are "wildly inappropriate" "utterly disgusting" and "way over the line" why has nobody revdelled? Or even posted a warning on the now retired OP's talk page? Editors should not erase the comments of the minority voters - that seems like a fundamental rule for any fair election. I did not see anyone racing to remove Tony B's outrageous pointy accusations in this RFA - is it because he voted with the majority? Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Would you agree that there are limits on what all voters, including minority voters, are allowed to say about a candidate? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    As the person who reinstated the removal, I do not care that it was an RFA where it happened, I did not participate in the RFA, I don't remember having previous substantial involvement with the candidate, any of the commenters, the first remover or you, the reverter. I reinstated the removal because uninvolved editors can remove serious aspersions in any discussion pages and because anyone can remove BLP violations anywhere. I believe I was not grossly incorrect in invoking BLP concerns and as such under protections awarded to me and the subject under BLP policy, I ask that it not be reinstated without consensus. That is all. What admins do or elect not to do is their business. What functionaries and bureaucrats do or elect not to do are their respective businesses also. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Much ado about nothing. Lately theleekycauldron has been wagging a finger at other editors. This is just another nothingburger which would have had zero attention if Leeky had not expressed outrage in the RFA and then started this thread. We need to protect the minority voters in RFAs. I think the answer is to vote in private because this is the kind of sideshow that comes out of public votes. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Egregious BLP violations are never "nothingburgers", regardless of whether they're in an RfA !vote or not. leeky was correct to uphold basic standards of decorum and I commend her for doing so. Being a "minority voter" is not carte blanche to imply that other editors condone criminal activity. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
No idea what you are talking about but yes, you are in the Leeky finger wag camp - I got it. And Usedtobecool, you are upholding a LOCALCON here about a 200-6 RFA. It is easy to get see a consensus in such a super majority. Maybe we all get back to editing now? Or do we need to see heads roll? Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, you are casting aspersions on Leeky without substantiation on a page that's not even for user conduct discussions. If you wish to move on, I suggest you strike and refactor. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a really weird hill to die on. The offending comments were clearly inappropriate. It is unfortunate that the editor who made those comments has chosen to retire, but it was even more unfortunate that he chose to make them in the first place. Frankly, it looks like GhostofDanGurney was wildly gasping at straws to discredit the candidate due to a personal resentment from a couple years before, and that sort of vindictive behavior is not acceptable. We can protect minority voters without allowing them free reign to conduct character assassination campaigns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Shockingly enough, I do agree with you on your last point – I've come to believe that there's a clear need for RfA to be run by SecurePoll. The current system creates a vicious cycle where the smartest would-be opposers know better than to wade into the fold, leaving only louder and more easily rebutted opposes. Supporters then feel more license to badger those opposes, which scares away more would-be opposers, rinse and repeat until we're standing where we are now. The only tool we have to deal with that – actually taking out opposes that violate policy – isn't usable because (1) bureaucrats don't want to and (2) people generally feel that they have the right to vote for whatever reason they want in an RfA, otherwise it's censorship. There are exceptions to this (and funnily enough, TonyBallioni is the best one I can think of), but in general, I tend to feel that a private vote with public discussion both (1) actually allows more time for discussion and vetting, (2) lets 'crats and admins sanction discussion items that are so clearly personal attacks, and (3) allows opposers to vote their conscience without fear. The solution to the corrosive environment at RfA is that the discussion needs to be a discussion where you have to be constructive, and the vote needs to be a vote where you can participate without feeling like someone's breathing down your neck.
All of that aside, this wasn't a nothingburger. I understand why you feel that the minority needs to be protected – I actually do as well – but it can't come at the cost of our principles of civility. Publicly speculating that another editor is subversively pushing harmful views on child sexual abuse with no evidence is not okay. We can't compromise on our values as a community that way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty disappointed that no crat has, 4 days later, decided it's worth their time or attention to even reply substantively to this request. It suggests to me that the current corp of crats is, outside of Primefac, unwilling to do the clerking the community has asked them to do. If you look at the most recent crat promoted (nominated by me no less), in response to the question they got about reducing the toxcity of RfA, there was nothing about clerking the discussions. That attitude seems pretty uniform. This suggests to me that the community either needs to get some crats who are willing to do that work or to rethink how clerking at RfA works. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Desysop for WTT

Latest comment: 11 months ago16 comments13 people in discussion

Hi 'crats. I have watched my free time dwindle over the past few months, and looking forward, I don't see that state of affairs changing. If someone could remove my admin and crat access (or raise a steward request for the latter), then I'd appreciate it. I don't believe I need any other user-rights, as I expect I'll be putting up a closed for business sign presently.

It's been great working with everyone over the past decade and half. I hope to return if I ever have time, but unlikely to do so before the longstop, so I'll note here that I intend this to be permanent, and should I wish admin / crat rights again, I will do so through the RfA / RfB processes. WormTT(talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done (at least the -sysop part) Thanks for your service. bibliomaniac15 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Worm That Turned for your many years of assistance and your investment in our mission. BusterD (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
SRP request opened. — xaosflux Talk 18:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow, sorry to hear it, WTT. I hope the IRL demands are good ones rather than otherwise, and I hope if things change you'll be back. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Best wishes on your next endeavors WTT. — xaosflux Talk 18:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ritchie333 is sad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 CMD (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. It's been an honour and privilege to be your fellow Crat for many years, WTT. A hugely respected Wikipedian. I would love to see you return one day. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Job Done
For good services as an admin, a Crat, an Arb, an editor, and a significant member of the community who gave help and assistance to many. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
It would be good to see you back one day. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This is not the news I wanted to see on my return from holiday, you are unquestionably one of the Wikipedians I hold in highest regard and sincerely hope to see you around these parts again as soon as you are able. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I didn't see this before, but you will be missed. Many good memories, and hopefully more to come should time allow. -- Amanda (she/her) 19:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Desysop (Ameliorate!)

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It is unlikely I am going to return to active editing so I would like to resign my admin permissions. ♣ Ameliorate! 05:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your service. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#February 2024

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
(none)
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Sugarfish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Dec 2021
  2. Staecker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: May 2015
  3. east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jun 2022

Desysop request (Stan Shebs)

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Stan Shebs (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Though still interested in Wikipedia, I don't expect to take up admin activities again. Stan (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Please let us know if you would like any of the advanced permissions. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Stan Shebs, thank you for your long service to this project as an administrator and, for many years, a bureaucrat. Acalamari 02:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Mzajac)

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Mzajac (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

In accordance with this motion please desysop Mzajac. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of general sanctions at the village pump

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Community sanctions: rethinking civility enforcement at RfA that may be of interest :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Aspersions in Sdkb RFA

Latest comment: 10 months ago40 comments17 people in discussion

While we are discussing crat clerking, can I draw attention to the current RfA's sole oppose. This needs some sort of action surely. The section is pretty self-explanatory: User:Homeostasis07 has alleged that the candidate indulged in inappropriate off-site behavior, for which they are compiling diffs now. That was nearly five days ago, but they have not edited the RfA or any other since. No one supports the claim; they have been consistently criticised, and WP:ASPERSIONS mentioned several times. Handgrenades, as I said, seem to have been wielded. While the allegation itself is unsavoury, what's worse is they have literally been allowed to make one of the severest allegations one can make on-site, with no diffs, no evidence, and not an iota of justification. Arbcom's input on whether they have received such evidence would be helpful.* If they confirm they have, then that fulfils the requirement of diffs (the community need not be able to see them). If they haven't, then Arbcom's 2015 resolution applies: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe, and per WP:WIAPA?, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

It is true that in the current RfA, the allegation has not dented the candidate's support. In fact, its foolishness may well even have contributed to it  :) but two things are more important. Firstly, that we allow such comments to stand unchallenged when they fly so blatantly in the face of policy is a poor look, to say the least. Secondly, if it is allowed to stand in the long term, it might be raised in the future—months? Years?—and highlighted as indicating no smoke without fire ("And look, there must've have something to it, because no-one ever did anything!"). We should not allow a blemish on the candidate's character to stand like this. Cheers! Apologies for the length.

* Yes, there's a template I could use here to page every member of the committee to this discussion, but in the context of other templates and other discussions, I'll refrain  :) ——Serial 15:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 has indicated they are sending evidence to the Arbitration Committee; if that is not received then I see no reason why the problematic content would not be struck. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate you replying here Primefac. Not necessarily to you personally, but how long would one be expected to have before submitting evidence? Regarding collection of evidence, POLEMIC is no more precise than in a timely manner, but the difference here is that in a RfA, a 168-hour clock is ticking. I suggest that Arbcom block Homeostasis07 either until he submits evidence or returns to editing and publically withdraws his allegations, even if the RfA has passed. Such a block would at least be preventative rather than punitive. ——Serial 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure blocking opposers in RFAs is a good idea. Honestly I'm not even in favor of third party striking in most cases. Let people say what they want, in my opinion, and if the rationale is poor, the rest of us are smart enough to see this, and it reflects poorly on the opposer, not the candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think an oppose !vote should warrant a block. Realistically, in a close, we'd disregard votes that are either disingenuous or misleading. The above does seem to be a part of a pattern of behaviour, which could be actioned by an administrator. The only bit that would be crat related would be to explain what is suitable in an RfA discussion, striking unsuitable !votes and moving/ending discussions not related to the RfA. We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote, so we can't just strike this !vote (they could easily have made no comment with the oppose). We could, however, clerk potentially worrying comments at the discussion. I'm open to hear what things we should be doing when the comments/behaviour happens on an RfX page rather than any other page. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
We don't currently have any rules on what sort of things can be expressed during a !vote. No, we have a policy devoted to it instead. RfA isn't subject to ignoring policy, nor does IAR relate to behavior. This is not just a normal crappy opposition based on a silly, subjective opinion, this is an accusation of one of the worst things it is possible for any editor—let alone admin—could possibly do. In fact, if the same allegation was made about an admin, they would (probably) be desysopped, it's that serious. Yet it's OK to say it about a candidate? I tell you. If anyone asks in future, "Why are so few candidates standing for RfA these days / Why is RfA so toxic?", Why not just point them to this conversation... ——Serial 18:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
hit the nail on the head! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the clock is an issue with a single oppose. If a correction, redaction, or other adjustment is considered appropriate, it can be done even after the closing, so anyone seeing the discussion in future will know the corresponding context. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: Firefly noted on behalf of ArbCom today that such evidence has not been provided, if there's anything you'd like to do beyond what Floq has done. Maybe a warning would be in order, if this RfA ends and the allegation remains unsubstantiated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I want to note that while we discussed this issue, Firefly's message was not technically on behalf of the Committee as a collective. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: Ah, thanks, good catch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
As the only standing neutral !vote so far, because while I have a high view of Sdkb and would otherwise support, I believe that Homeostasis should have the full time limit, same as the rest of us do, to modify their !vote and/or respond to comments.

Even if Firefly's message had been on behalf of ArbCom, it does not, for me, follow that Homeo's !vote should be stricken.

We do not know why they have not responded or edited since their comments in the RfA. We have no way of knowing whether they have even seen Firefly's message. We have many long-term users in good standing who take long, unexplained breaks between flurries of edits. Sometimes they offer explanation, but it is not our place to ask them why, much less draw adverse inferences about their motives behind a particular edit from those absences.
If Homeo had been regularly editing in the interim and ignored Firefly's request entirely for, say, a day or so, I'd consider the unilateral decision to strike the !vote more justifiable. And I will also say that AGF means that I do not hold it against Amanda for striking the !vote ... indisputably it has caused drama we don't need to have (well, wait a minute ... by definition, as I often say in edit summaries, drama is something we don't need to have), but I believe she was acting in what she reasonably believed to be the community's best interests (and, really, with the !vote tally the way it is now, and so many people !voting support in response to Homeo's oppose and apparent subsequent inaction in the wake of a serious allegation, no one could possibly consider this to be anything close to an attempt to manipulate the outcome). It was an action that could be reversed as easily as it was taken, as indeed it was. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The clerking done on that !vote was in line with what I was planning. Primefac (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Weird. Any other page on the project, and this evidence-free accusation would have been removed and the user warned to provide evidence *before* making accusations. But RFA is special? In the absence of crat clerking, Ad Orientem has moved the thread to the talk page, and I've taken the liberty of also moving the evidence-free accusations to the talk page. User:Aardvark Floquenbeam said it was OK.... Actually, he said it could just be deleted, but I chickened out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I for one look forward to our new 'vark clerk overlord... ——Serial 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the mention of evidence being sent in the near future to ARBCOM has meant that the community has taken a "wait and see" approach to the matter rather than this chaos being a result of RFA. It's in some sort of limbo where the evidence exists and doesn't exist at the same time. I wonder if admins that aren't bureaucrats feel weird about the prospect of taking action regarding the claims made since RFAs fall under the bureaucrats' purview and the bureaucrats feel weird since they aren't part of arbcom. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure the crats want to have this beaten to death even more, so... I think Amanda handled the RFA talk page exactly right, and in hindsight, I wish I'd done that in my non-crat clerking yesterday. I think, however, since there is still a minor justification that remains unredacted, that the actual vote on the main RFA page should be restored, with the first paragraph showing and the second one redacted (just like Amanda did on the talk page). I also agree with Primefac's restoration of Lightburst's pointy vote. I won't be bold, tho. Crats need to be the final decision makers in cases like this. Regardless of this quibble, thanks to both of them for wading in.
If crats are going to clerk more frequently (something I support and welcome), I'd personally like to see an approach to redact any content that needs redacting, but don't send the actual vote down the memory hole unless it's made by someone not allowed to vote. The closing crat would, of course, be free to ignore pointy or content-free votes when it comes time to evaluate consensus. It's the policy-violating content that needed removal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
If the community is going to be resistant to removing the actual vote counter, I would suggest that such debate is a red herring for actually warning users who engage in what the 'crats judge to be misconduct. If Homeostasis's comment was worth removing, why wasn't it worth a warning for a conduct violation? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you replying to me? Where did I say a warning wasn’t appropriate? I certainly think a warning was appropriate. But there was also a non-redacted reason given for opposing, and I don’t understand why the vote itself is still removed (except crat fatigue at all of us kibitzers, which I can kind of understand……) Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: I am replying to you, but I'm not contradicting you at all – I'm just providing some food for lateral thought. (Homeostasis wasn't warned, was my point. Neither was Lightburst.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. It probably says something about me that my first instinct is that a reply is a disagreement … Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: To be completely honest, you don't need a crat to issue a conduct warning. I don't think us clerking RfA should turn into a tier 2 enforcement level for the community. Admins, and even users can issue warnings to people, and we don't need to be involved with that in issuing any formality. I do think though that my comment on the talkpage was a warning within itself about the inappropriate behavior, but YMMV on the degree of my comments and how strong the warning needed to be. If that's the case I'm not stopping nor am I encouraging it further. That said, IRT Lightburst (this time and this time only), I was following WP:DISENGAGE, especially as issuing a warning to a user disagreeing with my action is very much an involved action. The talkpage expressed enough to leave it where it was and not blow this up to even more drama.
@Floquenbeam: The redaction of the first part on the actual RFA I can see the reasoning behind it, and would agree with said reasoning, but I'll make a point later on in this comment. I would disagree with the actual vote being left in force, regardless of the vote count some have eluded to. The vote was pulled because the users rationale violated core policies, and only leaving part of the actual vote is compromising the vote itself. If any part of a vote is going to disappear, the whole vote should until the user can reaffirm within policy. I also provided the opportunity for the user to restore it when it remained within policy, and I also left a note about it - so not exactly down the memory hole. And honestly, the community is asking for unprecedented action more and more by 'crats - even if it's supported by policy. So if there is going to be bureaucracy about bureaucracy, it might as well be bureaucratically specified in policy or RfC - as this post action thought is not really assisting in the idea that crats should clerk. Though I do understand the point of post-morteming the first occurrence of this, I would suggest that it would be better at a point of broader community input - not where the crats are supposed to respond by default. tl;dr not trying to be an asshole, but we aren't thinking about the implications and pitting crats into fixing the extreme side of toxic RfA culture that no one has been able to fix for years. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@AmandaNP: I am not sure you can quote an actual policy or guideline that says you have the right strike a vote because some part of the rationale was against policy. You said they need to "reaffirm within policy"? It seems like you are making that up. You could have (Personal attack removed) the offending part of the rat. You were acting as an election monitor, but they exist to make sure folks are not disenfranchised.
I am also gobsmacked by Leeky who I work with in other areas of the project. Leeky seems to be constantly angling for a reason to ban, sanction or warn. Maybe because a single oppose voter in their RFA had their vote struck and I reinstated it? I voted with the majority in Leeky's RFA and in Sdkb's but I did the work of an election monitor by trying to allow a voter who voted opposite of me, to vote. Since Leeky was one of the nominators in this sdkb RFA they could have insisted on leaving the oppose vote (sans rationale). Instead we have a second oppose voter with a complaint about disenfranchising. It takes all of us with our disparate beliefs and interests to make this project great. And it takes a fair election to make everyone feel like they have a voice in handing out a lifetime appointment. I have another plane to catch soon but I hope that you all have a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
So I say on the RfA page that i'm trying to be accountable, but I don't want to engage in back and forth, so you bring it here to try and push me to be more accountable after me meeting the requirement. Brilliant.
Nothing says specifically that I have the right to strike the vote, it's not an absolute statement that I'm relying on - and I have concerns about that I expressed above if you could please read that. It also highlights that I'm relying on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC for the authority to "clerk" which is never defined as to what we can and can't do, and I've yet again already expressed concern about this. There is no where on this wiki where clerking is written out to be an exact limit. SPI, ArbCom, CCI clerks, whatever BAG's idea of clerking is, nowhere. But you are dissecting and twisting my post, as the within policy refers to the casting aspersions which relies on a separate ArbCom ruling on the subject rooted in WP:NPA. I have already said that I don't agree with other actions that were taken, making concessions and trying to maintain a productive discussion. But if you are just going to tear apart my statements, not look for context, nor compromise where we are working on the same ideals, then we can't really have a discussion and is why I said I'm not trying to engage (or badger you) as an opposer. The rest of your comment I do not wish to address because it's either not my conduct or the hyperbole is too high in comparing roles that are different. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@AmandaNP: Sorry, I did not see that you had offered a comment there - you should ping as I do not follow all of these discussions. Oddly enough I am a supporter of the candidate. But I am curious as to what "compromise" is possible? A vote is either struck or it is not struck. I thought a great compromise was to remove or even revdel the policy offense and leave the vote. Part of the rationale was most certainly not an aspersion. It was the voter's personal reason for opposing. Lightburst (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Again this is pulling my words apart. Compromise (as I said "where we are working on the same ideals") refers to the discussion and the points we are talking about, not my actual action. Like saying "I agree with you there is no where that clerks are limited on wiki, but" and then spell your concern out with the relevant line. I have already addressed what you said in previous comment on this page and in the diff I linked in the very last comment here, so I will provide diffs. BN & the RfA talk -- Amanda (she/her) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It is easy to read your comments as dismissive and insulting. Maybe that is not your intent but calling my comments hyperbole, or accusing me of pulling apart comments, and your accusatory small print when you never pinged me to other discussion... Maybe you did not mean to insult so I will overlook. You actually said, "compromise where we are working on the same ideals". But your comment was apparently unrelated to my complaint about your removal of a vote. You may have been referencing some other pie in the sky ideal? I was staying on message. I was talking about disenfranchising a voter. Thanks for the messages, i will look for areas of agreement in your words. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Amanda, I've already gotten sucked into this more than I intended, but did want to address your "[I'm] not trying to be an asshole" line: I certainly don't think that. We disagree, is all, and to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply anything else. As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. (Now, I'm bowing out of the conversation lest someone tell me I need to calm down...) Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Apologies, that was meant that part as a general statement to everyone involved, not anything directed at you - I should have been more clear. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Amanda, is there a history of conflict between Homeostasis07 and Sdkb, or a pattern of improper behaviour by Homeostasis07? If not, then there is no policy based reason to remove their comments or their vote. The policy response to such comments as made by Homeostasis07, if they are a single instance, is to ignore them - and that indeed is what people not familiar with policy should be encouraged to do, as that reduces the drama, and avoids the Streisand Effect. Indeed, RfA would be a quieter, calmer, less dramatic, and more pleasant arena if people followed policy and ignored comments they don't like. We are near the end of this RfA now, and restoring the vote would create more drama, but I do think that as 'Crats it is our responsibility to ensure that policy is followed. I would not wish this incident to pass without comment in case it sets a precedent. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    Ultimately whether to strike the vote or not is a crat decision. But SilkTork, I must disagree with your assertion that the correct policy response to the comment is to do nothing and indeed voiced, when asked as an arb, that it was an aspersion and as such supported this message being sent to Homeostasis07. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    And this is exactly why I see the vast majority of crats as completely out of touch, sit on their hands, legacy admins. It might behoove yinz to have to go through an RfB every 5 years so you don't forget what it is like to get dragged in public for a week. "Have you tried ignoring people" is an absolutely pathetic response. Amanda has guts, which is better than I can say about everyone else. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    We have: WP:ASPERSIONS, where the wording is "continually accuse", "routinely accuse", "repeated", etc. And we have Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks, where the advice in an isolated incident is "to simply ignore it". If this was an isolated incident, then it could be ignored. If it isn't an isolated incident, then the matter needs to be dealt with, not by covering it up, but by addressing the user who is being disruptive. I support the message sent as being more appropriate than removing the comment.
As regards being out of touch. Yes, I have been considering for some time standing down as a Crat as I certainly don't have the same levels of energy and motivation I used to have. I have approached it a number of times this year, and almost did so a couple of days ago when the discussion arose around clerking RfAs, and I realised I wasn't really up to that task any more. And I will resign shortly. I do dispute, though, that responding heavily to inappropriate comments is a positive thing. That's a road rage mentality that rarely ends well. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
You omit the part of aspersions where it says particularly severe; I think Reaper Eternal does a good job below of laying out why such a comment at RfA qualifies as particularly severe. ASPERSIONS also says Significant concerns about the behavior of other users should be first resolved directly with the users concerned. If this is not possible, they should be addressed with evidence through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures. with the crats being an appropriate dispute resolution procedure in this case, while "Responding to personal attacks" is about how the person, not the community, should respond to such an attack. So that guidance would be about how Skdb should respond this situation not how uninvolved administrators/bureaucrats/arbitrators can handle situation. I am glad that we agree that a message to Homeostasis07 is appropriate as that's what I chose to support. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
"[T]here is no policy based reason to remove their comments." I'd argue that no personal attacks is a policy, and I have one of the most lenient views on civility. Nobody has asked for Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned—people just wanted the unsubstantiated allegations removed, as our no personal attacks policy clearly states in the lead section. Since this was an RFA, most of us expected the bureaucrats to be in charge of enforcing policy and keeping order; I know I at least didn't remove the comment solely to avoid appearance of impropriety. I also didn't want the RFA to devolve into a free for all with people deleting each others comments and votes.
I'd argue that unsupported allegations of misbehavior are some of the worst kinds of personal attacks since they tarnish the reputation of the accused in the eyes of onlookers rather than merely being insulting. If I said "Fuck you!" to someone, everybody would just think I'm a jerk. On the other hand, if I suggested that said person engaged in stealth canvassing, some people would be suspicious of him, resulting in a far more insidious character assassination. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, if I suggested that said person engaged in stealth canvassing, some people would be suspicious of him, resulting in a far more insidious character assassination. Interesting that there were no "oppose per homeostasis" opposes. I think everyone was smart enough to ignore the aspersion. Which is great. It suggests that a lighter touch could have worked here. Also interesting that removing the oppose generated two protest opposes. If the goal is the least disruption possible to the RFA candidate, it would seem that leaving the oppose is the objective choice here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments above. You are proving every day that you were a good choice to be a sysop. I am hopeful that we can find a way to allow voters to vote in private. I imagine if a person hopes to be an admin someday they may not vote their conscience. I think they may skip opposing for fear they will be opposed at their own future RFA. I just saw that there was an ANI report about my own participation in the sdkb RFA. I could have been sanctioned before I could even get to a computer. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I hate creep, but perhaps a body of rotating electoral commissioner composed of otherwise uninvolved and willing admins? We sometimes need BOLD clerking help at RfA; the community may choose to empower somebody with agency to act. Shouldn't be our worthy Primefac all the time. My idea is an open body of admins who act neutrally (perhaps even as assistants to the nomination process and proper page format) and in practice do as little as absolutely necessary. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    The arb election process is far more exhaustive and lengthy than any RfA. Last November we had three admin commissioners and one admin alternate. Not closing but observing. Mostly reading the discussion. Refereeing. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure if this is an argument in support of your proposal, but nonetheless: the shifting theoretical role of the arbitration committee elections commission is an example of scope creep. The commission was originally created as a way to deal with issues for which there was insufficient time for the community to discuss and resolve on its own. From there, people started assuming the commission oversaw co-ordination of the election (most of the work continues to be done by the same people who did it before, whether or not they are commissioners, though there are usually new volunteers each year seeking to assist). Then after some disagreements on the questions, the task of moderating questions was added, followed by moderating guides later. That being said, the commissioners have had few problems in these areas to deal with. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Resignation (Tamzin)

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The loss of a dear friend, a far greater editor than I'll ever be, has put in perspective what I'd been mulling over for a while. I've lost the stomach to be a part of this site's toxic back-room culture. I could enumerate the litany of problems with our culture, but they all boil down to one thing: We aren't nice. I like being nice, and I find that these parts of Wikipedia make me less nice, and so I will stop engaging with them.

The best of luck to the rest of you. One parting thought: You'll fix RfA about a year after you've fixed AN/I. Anyways, I'll still be around in mainspace, doing what this site is actually for: building an encyclopedia.

I express my gratitude, as always, to the bureaucrat team. Please also remove my EFM flag. I would appreciate regaining page mover and template editor, as they occasionally come in handy in content work. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Fwiw, Stephen Harrison (the Slate-guy) has commented more than once that compared to other online forums, WP-discussions are often remarkably civil. "We" aren't nice, sure, but "we" are "people". Of course, as an admin, you pretty much have to be more involved with the toxic stuff than other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:@Bureaucrats

Latest comment: 10 months ago13 comments9 people in discussion

 Template:@Bureaucrats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm in the minority here and the rest of the 'crats like this? — xaosflux Talk 16:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I suspect you are; you also recently opposed the {{@BAG}} template for what appears to be similar reasons (despite no real opposition at its creation). Primefac (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@BAG was discussed at the appropriate noticeboard, then created, and I chose to opt-out. I will certainly opt out of this one as well if it is kept, but think this is more egregious - not just that it is 300% larger in distribution, but its frequency of use is increasing as well. Could you imagine dropping a @sysop or @rollbacker request somewhere? — xaosflux Talk 20:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hyperbolic statements are unnecessary; there is zero reason to ping every sysop or rollbacker and you know it. Remove yourself if you don't like it, but don't try to use some weird slippery slope argument to try to invalidate its existence. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps Xaosflux's point is not that {{@sysop}} is the next stop on a slippery slope, but just that somewhere between {{@BAG}} and {{@sysop}}, there's got to be a boundary. Seems like X thinks this is on one side of that, and you think it's on the other, but establishing that there's actually a boundary somewhere is a useful thing to say. Plus, there's a maximum 50 pings anyway, right? -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the boundary is ultimately a group size of 50. Izno (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, I think {{@editors}} might come in handy if I had something Really Important to tell everyone. 28bytes (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
{{@anoneditors}} would be handy for times when vandalism is on an uptick so we can warn them all at once, amirite? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Good way to get targeted by all the LTAs. (I'm speaking from experience.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
for the first time in my editing career, may i say: may we hit that technical restriction one day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
We'll never have 50 crats. I'm sure of it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I had not thought of it that way; that's a fair point. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 requests for adminship review

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review. You are invited to discuss, contribute to, and propose ways to improve the requests for adminship process. Thank you :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. –xenotalk 19:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA clerking

Latest comment: 9 months ago27 comments14 people in discussion

Perhaps, what we need is for crats to volunteer to oversee particular RFAs. A note at the top or on the talk page saying, "Bureacrats Primefac and Lee Vilenski are overseeing this RFA." If no bureacrat volunteers, we can do the RFA like the small projects do. Community does their process and waits for someone with necessary permissions to show up on their leisure to click their buttons. If someone does volunteer, editors get to ping that bureacrat or put their requests to bureacrats on a section on the talk page but they don't get to ping all the bureacrats. That should take care of most cases. When all else fails, there's always this board to post to.

Almost all the bureacrats seem to want to just do cratchats and rights changes, while editors increasingly seem to want at least one bureacrat undertaking an active clerkship in an RFA, a task for which only Primefac has ever demonstrated willingness. I think a conversation is long overdue as to what purposes the community wants the bureacrats for and whether bureacrats who volunteered for the role with the understanding of more limited expections are willing to adapt to that. If not, the community will have to learn to live with it or make new crats. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't mind watching RfAs, but it would be nice if someone else were there for the times when I'm away (this last weekend, the whole "religion question" thing, etc). Maybe it's a case of empowering admins to take these sorts of clerking actions (if a 'crat isn't about), and have a 'crat sign off on them afterward? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Usedtobecool that if we find there aren't enough crats willing to do the work asked of them at RfA the community needs to fix it somehow. I will also say that we've made a number of crats since the community asked for more crat intervention at RfA and I'm a little surprised that Primefac is the only one who does that work (but appreciative that he does). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'd be happy to actively clerk an RfA, I'm pretty happy to leave notes and the like and moving extended conversation to the talk page and the like. I think the issue we've got is to not have crats get involved with the conversation. There's also no real rule as to what can be asked/said at an RfA. If we want to empower clerking (or crats in general) to interevene with personal attacks, misleading arguments or leading questions, then we need to make that known.
    The big worry for me is, as a crat is to wade in with clerking and then not being perceived as neutral on a close or later cratchat. I would always recuse in such a situation, but it wouldn't stop a long conversation.
    That being said, I do watch the RfA and I actually appreciate the pings, as it's not a full-time job checking for things to clerk. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more – it feels like there's a lot more we could do in terms of policy and personnel to make civility enforcement at RfA more robust. We need a fresher blood – the median current bureaucrat was elected in 2010. We also need a better system for RfA civility enforcement than "the 'crats need to figure it out", and we need a way for participants to be able to have a say in the outcome with minimal disruption so that those who intentionally cause disruption can be held to account for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    I echo my comments below for reference, but beyond that, I have clerked a few RfAs and made clerk like actions on them, albeit not recently because I was promoted at work just over 2 weeks ago and have been exhausted trying to adjust to the new hours, and when I saw the comment to stop pinging crats (though I also agree it should continue) I made the wrong assumption that it was either frivolous and/or had already been dealt with. I will have to try and see if I can get myself pinged when a new RfA comes out so I can watch it better. That said, despite the community not coming to a consensus on this previously, I do think like theleekycauldron that the crats being a "more sensitive discussion closer" is both not ideal, and flies in the face of using b'crats to close RfCs or deletion discussions that are more 'controversial'. Crats were originally elected to be bureaucratic and not be frontline decision makers. But lacking community consensus any other way, we are the unfortunate fallback because we are assigned to making the determination about userrights. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Providing people are OK with crats both clerking RFAs and also closing them, I'm OK with doing some clerking when I'm around and know I will be around for several hours to respond to the aftermath of such an intervention. That said I think we should be very selective as to what clerking we do. But to respond to the specific suggestion, when we do need a redaction, we likely need it urgently. So until one of our AI admins passes RFB, we are not going to be able to provide the requisite 24/7 coverage with just a couple of named crats. ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    The 2015 request for comments on clerking reached a consensus that bureaucrats were empowered to perform clerking duties (with one support statement noting that the same bureaucrat shouldn't close the RfA). isaacl (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    The only concern with this is if we have more than 1 crat clerking, what does that do if a case goes to crat chat? Are they now all forced to recuse over clerking? I don't know that question has been answered. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Forgive me if this comes across as an obvious question, I know that several crats have shared this same opinion and concern over recusing, I just can't figure out what the opinion is based on. For regular admin actions, administrators are not considered involved simply on the basis of having made an action in an administrative capacity against an editor. If an admin was clerking comments in an RfA, so long as they did not show bias in doing so they would not ordinarily be construed as involved. Is there a specific part of the policies covering crats where you're construing involvement in a much wider way than we would elsewhere in the project? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not deriving it from policy by any means, it comes from the toxicity involved with RfA and how quickly people are to claim bias of any kind based on a clerking action. Given the result of the RfC is that the crat clerking should not close, that suggests that providing an opinion on top of clerking could be a controversial subject in the toxic area RfA is. Crats are also elected to be bureaucratic as I mentioned elsewhere. The definition of our role is not to move unless it's seemingly uncontroversial. Combine those two factors and that's where we are, but not because of any definition of INVOLVED or policy reason. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    So then how do we solve this seemingly unsolvable problem of on the one hand crats feeling unable to clerk RfAs because it could be seen as a controversial action, and admins feeling unable to clerk RfAs because they've not been empowered to do so and that it's the role of the crats? Because both groups are ultimately excluded from clerking, it's not getting done, which no doubt has an impact on the overall toxicity of RfA and the high levels of stress it causes to perspective candidates. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think one off type actions are an issue, especially considering I just took that action recently, but the active clerking of RfAs by multiple crats is where this poses a problem. To be clear, I have no objection to clerking as I have done in the past, but there are zero community norms as to if a crat *should* continue to work and provide an opinion on consensus. As far as I understand it's just purely untested water. I get that 'crats are elected to know their own bias, but it hasn't stopped the toxic crowd from forming at RfA and attacking whatever they can. I can't speak to the speed of the crats though in this situation, but I have addressed my speed below.
    I'm also of the same mind that 'crats dictating what it takes to make policy, or to suggest someone go start an RfC - or other venues, is not our role. In fact, unless you have a well formulated action plan and RfC, I would not recommend it, again because of toxicity. Our job is to review consensus, not to decide critical conduct policy that the community can't. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    And my concern has been reaffirmed within minutes of me saying so [3]. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, I saw that as I was drafting my reply below, and have asked the editor who did that to self-revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    No, I get that your role is, as you say, to review consensus and not decide conduct policy. My question is as much an open one to the room, as it is one that maybe just isn't answerable. But insofar as the scope of your role, and what actions you feel as though you can and cannot take within that scope, I think it would be remiss of the wider community not to ask for your input. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's fair and I guess the subtext to my answer there is ideally some enforceable change (RfC or large community consensus, confirmation by a large number of people of this being the status quo, and I cringe to say this next one - an Arbcom decision). The reason I'm trying to step around spaces is I also don't want people to take actions i'm suggesting and get murdered reduced to rubble in the RfA toxicity in doing so. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think the RFC found consensus that clerks should not close. The closer simply noted that some people brought it up. That, I'd read as "needs further discussion, maybe an RFC".
    A few voters suggested that it's not a good idea to allow one person to both "clerk" (whatever that means) an RfA and close it ... Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Leaving aside the question of whether or not a bureaucrat performing clerking actions makes them involved in the RfA, since there are nineteen bureaucrats, it should be possible to have a small subset take on clerking duties, leaving the majority of bureaucrats unencumbered to evaluate the result of the RfA discussion. I appreciate, of course, that the availability of bureaucrats can reduce that number. This could be an impetus for the community to nominate more bureaucrats, or to further affirm that bureaucrats are indeed trusted (as per their corresponding RfB discussions) to set aside any personal biases, or clerking actions taken, when determining the outcome of an RfA. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

At the RFA's talk page, bureaucrat User:AmandaNP advised that appealing 'crat actions needs to happen on this noticeboard so here goes. I oppose striking then redacting Homeostasis07's rationale, I oppose removing the vote entirely, and I oppose the redaction from the RFA's talk page, too. (That last one feels so, so pointless.) The only way they're casting aspersions and breaking policy is if they always meant to contribute those two messages and absolutely nothing more to the RFA. That, to my mind, is an entirely unfair thing to think given their history: They've been here forever, they have a ton of edits, the sole entry on their block log was some trifling BS from a decade ago, etc., etc., etc. The one example they gave, the thing on the Marilyn Manson article, was weak and I was one of several editors who debunked it. But does that matter? We know, per the words "compiling now", that Homeostasis07 planned to show a lot of evidence. I actually don't even agree with Daniel Case and others that the end of the RFA is itself a hard time limit. If Homeostasis07 is able to furnish evidence of longtime rulebreaking but not before the RFA ends, will Sdkb avoid sanctions? Of course not. City of Silver 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

My time limit was purely in regards to my !vote, which I changed to support at practically the last minute because I felt that the lack of proof, or evidence that proof had been submitted, made the allegation unsubstantiated for purposes of the RfA. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I may, whether or not we want to actively nominate users to clerk RfAs or not, we do need to address this going forward. Now that we don't have any active RfAs in progress, it's probably a good as time as ever. I'm very happy to do that role, but it's not really a one (or two) person job. That being said, I'm happy to be personally pinged to look at issues. I think asking a small subset of users to check any RfA page at all times might be a bit unrealistic. Let me know if you think we should be dedicating users for this, or if crats as a whole should clerk/guide the RfA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Crats, would it be helpful to get an RfC consensus on whether clerking should disqualify someone from closing/crat-chatting? I think it fairly clearly isn't disqualifying (along the lines of the "purely in an administrative role" exception to WP:INVOLVED), but if this is something that's discouraging people from clerking, then we should definitely get a consensus on it one way or the other, and I'd be happy to start the discussion. But I don't want to spend the community's time getting an answer unless it's something that crats would actually find useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not necessarily think this is "an issue"; I clerked Floq 2, Tamzin, SFR, and MB rather heavily (enough to be in the top 20 by edit count) and yet no one said anything or expressed concern about my participating in the ensuing 'crat chat. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we need an RfC to denote this, but even an implied community consensus that making actions, such as striking !votes, cleaning up arguments and in cases like we are talking about removing PA and baseless accusations aren't enough to make someone WP:INVOLVED with the RfA and not need to recuse.
My worry isn't for the vast majority of cases where the clerking is obvious, it is more for when there might be accusations of impartiality. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I trust that bureaucrats - before they participate in a bureaucrat discussion/chat - consider whether their actions and related discussions during that RfX would affect their ability to evaluate consensus responsibly (and as you note, perception does comes into the equation here). I agree that clerking - where purely bureaucratic activity - shouldn't by default prevent participation in a bureaucrat chat. And in the case where guidelines emerge that routine clerking should restrict participation: if substantially all of the active/available bureaucrats performed clerking in an RfX that goes to a bureaucrat chat (I borrow this argument from Newyorkbrad who may differ here), they may still need to participate in that particular discussion per the "rule of necessity". I do encourage more users to apply for bureaucratship, especially if there are not enough available to perform necessary clerking (for example, the rostering system suggested above could be difficult to maintain with only 4-5 active bureaucrats - depending on volume). Bureaucrats as a group are the ones most likely to not be participants in RfAs (and especially RfBs) as a matter of course (where the remaining users with the required experience to perform the clerking activities more typically are), so the task (as a necessity =) generally falls to them where they a recent request to perform a better-defined clerking function. –xenotalk 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

the task [...] generally falls to them where they a recent request to perform a better-defined clerking function
— User:Xeno 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what does that mean? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Isabelle Belato)

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isabelle Belato (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I'd like to have my administrator tools removed for the time being. Thanks. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done Thanks for your work, Isabelle. Should you request your tools back, there will be a 24-hour review period. Acalamari 02:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request TLSuda

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

TLSuda (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I would like to request administration access be removed from my account at this time. TLSuda (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 15:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy handling, I should've done this prior to now. TLSuda (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hope you are still around, if you need any of the WP:PERM type flags feel free to ask on my talk. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request NrDg

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

NrDg (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I would like to request administration access be removed from my account at this time. NrDg (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#March 2024

Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Kbdank71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Feb 2023
  2. Kosack (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Jan 2023
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
(none)
Sad to see somebody I nominated for RfA retire and disappear :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#April 2024

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. JohnOwens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Apr 2007
  2. Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: Aug 2022
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
(none)

Handing in my mop (MelanieN)

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, bureaucrats! I am here to request withdrawal of my status as an administrator. I have not been very active at Wikipedia recently and have almost forgotten how to use a mop. So I would like to resign the tools. I will remain a Wikipedian, and will add or correct content whenever the spirit moves me. Thanks for the ride. MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie for all you've done for Wikipedia and all you did for me. I hope our paths will cross soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  Done. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! See you around. MelanieN (talk)
Thanks, MelanieN. We appreciate your steadying efforts over the years. BusterD (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Nihonjoe

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In accordance with Remedy 3 of the now-closed Arbitration case "Conflict of interest management", please desysop Nihonjoe. (Permalink to PD with votes)

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

With massive regret,   Done Acalamari 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work as a Crat. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Adminstrator elections trial run

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As the most recent proposal for admin elections has attained consensus for a trial run, and it specifies that bureaucrats will manage the process, I invite any interested volunteers to participate at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Role of bureaucrats to manage process to work out details of bureaucrat involvement. (This message was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats; apologies for the duplication.) isaacl (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Resysop request (Nyttend)

Latest comment: 8 months ago22 comments13 people in discussion

Nyttend (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Requesting restoration of my admin tools, which were removed for inactivity. I've read Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_admin_tools but I'm actually not clear if I qualify, because I find some bits of the "Lengthy inactivity" line confusing. I was editing and using administrative tools frequently until 3 May 2021, after which I next edited on 11 February 2023, so my inactivity was less than two years long, but more than the one year specified a few sentences later. If I don't qualify because of the more-than-one-year line, could someone explain what it means? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, means exactly that, from between when it was removed, and now, which you wouldn't qualify for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
So if your understanding is correct, do I qualify for restoration, assuming no problems? I've been active since February last year, so in that whole time there's been less than two years of inactivity. The one-year line makes it sound as if I have to have just one year of inactivity to be disqualified for restoration, but if that's the case, I don't see the point of the less-than-two-years line. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just editing my wording, I'll explain better here. My understanding is that if you have any two-year period without an edit from the date when you had the tools removed and today, then you wouldn't be suitable.
You don't fail the requirements, the time is less than two years, so you should be fine, but as it's such a close item to two years I'd like a bit more feedback. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Lee, I agree with your interpretation. Since the inactivity was less than 2 years in duration, and there are no concerns about current activity levels (over 100 edits in 2024 alone), Nyttend should receive the tools back following the customary 24-hour hold. Welcome back, Nyttend. 28bytes (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. We'll open the 24 hour hold in that case. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
+2, not excessively inactive and appears to have already returned to activity. — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The one-year line means that people in your position would need to go through RfA if they remained inactive for a year after their desysop. You resumed activity less than a year after your August 2022 desysopping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations on one/two years. Once this concludes, and I have the tools back (or someone raises a reason to wait more than 24 hours), I think I'll propose a change of wording on one/two years, based on what's said here. I'd appreciate your help on the wordsmithing, since I'll try to improve the wording without changing the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I chose not to reapply when I returned to activity, since I figured I ought to show that I could be active first (i.e. no question that I was just returning to get the tools back), but I'd mostly forgotten about it. But in the last few days I've had to report a blatant spammer to AIV, and I realised that I'd rather handle the situation instead of waiting for someone else. Once I propose a clarification to the admin policy, I'll ping participants here. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully this alleviates the need for a long discussion at WT:ADMIN. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Your and Isaacl’s fine-tunings look good to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
And to me. The alternative would have the effect of discouraging returning former admins from spending some time as a non admin member of the community before asking for the return of the tools, I hope we can all agree that Nyttend like returns should be encouraged. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
As someone who has had a bit of influence over the development of these policies I agree. There's often a chance of running into the law of unintended consequences in policy wording, and we certainly don't want to discourage a return to activity before asking for the bits back, quite the opposite. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: July 2020
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Mets501 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: September 2017

Desysop request Staxringold

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Staxringold (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I truly love Wikipedia but, despite my best intentions, life has just clearly gotten in the way and I've not had time to re-engage as I thought I would. Per the Notice left on my talk page, I think voluntary resignation makes more sense than forcing you all to go through the automated process and added work. Maybe one day I'll be back editing more heavily, but I'm pretty clearly due for de-sysop'ing, given my current activity level. Staxringold talkcontribs 12:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrat (Deskana)

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved
Deskana (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

For total inactivity in excess of one year the bureaucrat access for Deskana will be removed. Thank you for your lengthy service Deskana! Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

SRP filed. — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the bureaucrat flag per request at SRP; thanks for their service throughout the years. EPIC (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I join in thanking Deskana for their many years of serving the Wikipedia community. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Very respective, thank you for your service! - FlightTime (open channel) 00:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Standing down as bureaucrat (Warofdreams)

Latest comment: 7 months ago12 comments7 people in discussion
  Resolved
Warofdreams (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I've been a bureaucrat for 20 years, which is more than long enough. I've not been very active in this role in recent years, so it is time to stand down. Thank you for tolerating me in post for all this time! I'd like to remain an administrator and will of course continue to edit. While I believe I could remove my own flag, for clarity, I'd prefer another bureaucrat to do so. Warofdreams talk 22:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, and for your long service. I believe you’ll have to make the request at meta, though, since ‘crats can’t de-crat. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, and I'm pleased to see a request has now been made at meta. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
There are a couple of stewards who are also bureaucrats here – though they usually don't use steward powers in their home wikis, they can handle resignations. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Warofdreams, thank you for serving Wikipedia as a bureaucrat for 20 years. Two decades of service in the role is...honestly astounding! Hard to believe that when you first landed the position, Tony Blair was PM and George W. Bush was president...and you've outlasted them all and others since! Also well done for keeping active as you have done for so long, too.
Oh, and I'll never forget that you were the first bureaucrat I ever met, when you closed my first RfA from back in the day and commented on my talk page afterwards.
Thank you! Acalamari 22:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
And when I first landed the position, the president of Russia was... oh, Putin. Sadly I've not outlasted him! It's been a pleasure, thank you for the kind words. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your many years of dedicated service to the crat corps! — xaosflux Talk 00:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, for the nice words and for the request at meta. It's been a pleasure! Warofdreams talk 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Warofdreams17 years ago, you did this. I know adminship is supposed to be nobigdeal, but I think we all know that it really sort of is for most people, or at least for flawed people, which definitely includes me. Thank you for that, for 20 years of service, a surprisingly huge chunk of which we've been CrattyColleagues*, and a very collegiate CrattyColleague you have been. I've admired you, listened to you carefully and valued your time as a Bureaucrat. Glad you're not leaving altogether. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC) *I'm going to apply for the worldwide trademark for that

Thank you, it has been a pleasure working with you and I'm glad if I've made some useful contributions. I will definitely still be around as an editor, and if needed as an admin. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have now removed your bureaucrat rights per request at SRP. Warofdreams, thank you for your 20 years of service as a bureaucrat and hope to continue to see you around as an administrator. EPIC (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity

Latest comment: 7 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion

  Pending

I never understand why we treat Meta renames as bureaucrat activity - they have nothing whatsoever to do with being a crat. Last time I brought this up I was a minority of one in holding that position, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Likewise saying "intend to respond" and not doing so (as Cecropia and UninvitedCompany did in my cratchat) if anything reflects negatively on ones activity rather than positively and it makes no sense that doing so should keep one active. All of you are correct per the inactivity rules as currently interpreted bu the community, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect it's because 'crats used to do renames, and we just haven't gotten around to updating the associated pages to reflect that it's no longer the case. I am all for reevaluating our activity requirements as has been done a few times in the last few years. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Even if we collectively decide not to change the criteria, revaluating them every so often is a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#De-cratting

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats § De-cratting. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Resysop request (Graham Beards)

Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Graham Beards (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

As a virologist IRL, much of my time from 2020 to 2022 was given to combatting the covid pandemic and I relinquished the admin tools in 2022. But now having my free time restored and my full enthusiasm for WP back, I am finding my contributions are a little restricted by not having access to them. Although I made relatively light use of them as I work more on content. I don't want to face another RFA even though mine was quite encouraging. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Graham Beards performed an administrative action in July 2022 and resigned in August 2022, both under two years ago. A standard twenty-four hour wait period is required. Useight (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  Done. Useight (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit

Latest comment: 7 months ago34 comments18 people in discussion
Discussion here has petered out, discussions moving forward have been made in other locations. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't understand why the 'crats appear to be letting non-crats (and non-admins) make decisions about closing the RfA. The latest thing is it's now supposedly closed by a non-crat and another editor blanked the entire RfA as a "courtesy". Courtesy to whom? As far as I can tell, the candidate has never withdrawn; indeed, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. And even if they had withdrawn, say e-mail a 'crat to express their view, why wouldn't a 'crat then close it as withdrawn? And since when do we blank RfAs? I know 'crats often take a hands-off approach to "regulating" RfAs, but this goes way beyond that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted per above, and to put my onetime bureaucrat hat on, I see no reason to blank it. People are having panic attacks over how mean it is, but actually reading through it, if anything it was pretty tame with a lot of encouragement passed on to the user. It won't be the last one like this with the new rfa reform proposals in place either. Wizardman 23:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Undoing a courtesy blanking, crat or not, even if you don't think it was needed, is seldom helpful. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Speaking as the "another editor" who blanked the RFA after it was closed, I will agree on one point: crats really need to step in here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Crats: you need to nip this in the bud with a polite but clear statement that non-Crats should never be doing this. If not, this will happen again, and frankly, this isn't fair to the candidate, who might have logged in only to see it "closed" when it wasn't closed. This is clearly disruptive and needs addressing, for the sake of the candidates. This is WP:RFA, not WP:ANI, the margin of error is a bigger deal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • What are you guys talking about? You don't need a crat to close an RfA early and it's usually not crats that do it. Just like AfDs only need admins when the outcome could plausibly be deletion, RfAs only need crats when the outcome could plausibly be successful. Otherwise it's just a discussion like any other and you don't need a special hat to see which way the wind is blowing. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so personally I'd rather all RfAs were closed either by the user who initiated them or by a crat. However, our exact wording says that any user in good standing can close these discussions.
I think any RfA that is closed by a non-crat without a withdrawal will always be contentious, so perhaps it is worth changing that to avoid these sorts of conversations in future (as well as the closure revertions and associated drama). Nothing untoward has happened here, but we do have enough crats to be able to monitor and close SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs.
It's worth noting that we have asked the editor if they wished to withdraw, which would have been my primary reason not to let the RfA run it's course. Personally, if I ran for RfA in good faith, I wouldn't want someone closing it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, lots of SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs have been closed by non-crats without any issues. If crats want to close these discussions, they can certainly do so, but I would oppose any "you have to wait for a crat" rule as a prescriptive measure, given how common it is that the non-bureaucrat closes work perfectly fine. If crats become more active in this regard over the next couple of years and it turns out that 99% of the time, crats are closing these discussions, we can go and descriptively write that into the policy, but that isn't what current practice looks like. —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to an example of a contentious early close before this one? – Joe (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski Of the 7 unsuccessful RfAs last year, only 2 were closed by crats. In 2022 there were 6 unsuccessful RfAs and none were closed by crats. We have to go back to the 4 unsuccessful runs in 2021 to find a majority of failed RfAs closed by crats. I think any RfA that is closed by a non-crat without a withdrawal will always be contentious, What are you talking about? we do have enough crats to be able to monitor and close SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs. Then why has it been years since any of you have routinely done it? I've come to expect that crats won't step in when NPA and CIV are violated, but now we can't even trust the corps to not get into revert wars when the community does something it always has and is explicitly allowed by the policy you all claim to follow to the letter? The solution you propose is perhaps it is worth changing that to avoid these sorts of conversations in future, but why should we trust in the corps enough to give you more control over the RfA process? Unless the policy change you intend is to remove crats from closing unsuccessful RfAs, given the track record regarding enforcing NPA and CIV (examples from just this year: 1, 2, 3), I don't see why the community should trust the crats with more authority on deciding when an RfA has moved from helpful feedback to demoralizing pile-on. — Wug·a·po·des 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, as the rules are that anyone CAN close RfAs, then inevitably they will be closed by them. There are a lot more editors who feel that they would be suitable to close the RfA than crats, but I don't think we have too few to be able to handle closing them, if there was a feeling that crats should do the job (as some of the comments here were).
As a community we either agree that as it is written, it's as it should be and not reopen the discussion as done here. The other option is that we reserve such discussions to be closed by either crats or the nominee. The issue here is people suggesting crats should intervene but in this case it could be closed by any user in good standing per policy. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between closing an RFA and courtesy blanking it. Of course, as this was the first RFA under a new system the action is entirely arguably unprecedented (because there can be no precedent for a first example) so that may make a difference too.
I'm not sure where is best to discuss it, but coming to some sort of consensus about when RFAs may be snow closed and by who, and the same questions for courtesy blanking would be useful going forwards. Personally I think courtesy blanking should be exclusively for cases where the subject has asked for it, but I have no way of knowing at present how this view aligns or does not align with community consensus - and that's the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You (collectively) were elected to close RfAs if there was a feeling that crats should do the job (as some of the comments here were) of course there is it's pretty much the only thing in your job description. in this case it could be closed by any user in good standing per policy you are "any user". Every crat falls under any user, and more importantly you (collectively) are the only members of that set who have an actual assigned duty to do so. Allowing others to do it is a safety valve, a way to handle situations that move too quickly for crats to be expected to handle. This went on for hours and included a statement from the candidate that made me genuinely concerned for their mental health. The crat response was "is this a withdraw?" Come on. The problem isn't "who is allowed to close SNOW/NOTNOW RFAs". I'd believe that if the most recent archive didn't have examples of crats defending potential religious discrimination in an interview context, being slow to respond to someone allegations that were legitimately considered for OS (might have been I haven't checked), and letting lesser unsupported allegations of inappropriate conduct sit there. The problem here isn't the policy. If crats were proactive in handling this situation (or the prior) we wouldn't be discussing the propriety of non-crat closures. The controversy happened because after waiting around for any of you to do something, someone finally decided that our human sacrifice to the RfA reform god needed to end. And that's how it goes nearly every time, and it's how it will keep going if you all continue to sit on your hands and pretend the problem is everyone else who hasn't been elected to manage the RfA process. The conflict arises because you (collectively) let it, not because of a lack of clarity in the policy of who can do NOTNOW/SNOW closes. — Wug·a·po·des 20:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as I participated in the RfA, I was never going to take part in its closure. As such, I'd prefer for other bureaucrats to speak up but none have yet. But speaking in a general sense: As Joe Roe says, the process allows for non-bureaucrats to close obvious SNOW failures. While ToadetteEdit said they weren't withdrawing yet, the outcome of the RfA was not in doubt given the feedback presented and RfAs have been closed early in the past even when the candidate hasn't yet wanted to withdraw. Eventually, people start opposing because the candidate hasn't yet withdrawn.

Once this particular RfA had been closed, there was no need to re-open. The reopen, plus the addition and subsequent revert of the courtesy blank without consulting ToadetteEdit either way, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Why everyone skipped the discussion phase before reverting each other is beyond me. ProcrastinatingReader wrote this kind message after closing the RfA, whereas everyone else reverted or added to the RfA post-revert without discussing anything. Acalamari 07:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I have seen non-Crats do SNOW closes (not optimal but acceptable), but this was something different, particularly given the new rules on when voting would start. It seemed everyone was clustering to handle it, except the Crats. RFA is the domain of Crats, after all, and recent RFCs have indicated that the community wants Crats to be a little more proactive in clerking in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Of potential note, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_17:_Have_named_Admins/crats_to_monitor_infractions will be seeking additional feedback in Phase II of that RFC. — xaosflux Talk 10:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Said Phase II is currently open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Designated_RfA_monitors. This Phase II should be able to resolve most questions raised here Soni (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It is probably worth asking the question in the context of the RFA reform phase 2 of whether early closes (either of the SNOW or the NOTYET kind) are appropriate in the 2-3 day question/discussion only period. Izno (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    It's been long established that an editor doesn't have to be a bureaucrat to close an RFA per SNOW/NOTNOW. It's also quite clear that the general comments on the RFA in question did not leave passing looking promising. It does look kind of weird, having an early close with a tally of 0/0/0, but the RFC (at least in the closing comment) explicitly states that this trial is for the next five RFAs that aren't closed per SNOW/NOTNOW. Which means that early closures during the trial are acceptable. Useight (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn't follow that because early closures are acceptable that this early closure was acceptable. It may or may not have been, but it cannot be inferred. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. As far as I can tell, nothing was explicitly written regarding whether trial period RFAs are subject to the same or different yardstick for early closes. On one hand, the discussion was not favorable. On the other hand, nobody had opposed. Operating under the assumption that early closures exist, at least in part, as a measure to keep the candidate from getting discouraged, I would posit that that discouragement could come from the discussion section just as easily as it could from the oppose section. Useight (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hence my suggestion. Izno (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • There was absolutely NO basis for closing this as "not now" when not a single vote had been registered. This was absolutely brutal and masochistic treatment of the naive candidate, basically slamming the door in their face and essentially telling them that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY supports you. If they decide to withdraw their candidacy, then fine, but this "not now" was beyond the pale. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • If you want to close RFAs this way, then just abandon this misguided two-day "discussion", which serves no useful purpose. wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I think we can't just abandon this new discussion system quite yet, but yes, I saw this as rather brutal to the candidate. This is why I was complaining that Crats didn't get involved. Maybe it's time to consider limiting RFA closures to Crats only. This is particularly true with the new discussion system, where consistency is needed. Since only Crats can action the RFA, and they can action the RFA opposite of a non-Crat closure, this makes sense to me. I don't want to prevent NAC of other discussions, but RFA is unique. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
      • Dennis, I assume your statement re: Crats didn't get involved refers to re-opening the RFA after it had been closed by a non-crat. Speaking personally, I already knew they were going to withdraw, so I did not see a great need to re-open the discussion just for them to withdraw likely later that same day (I will also note that I was asleep when the close was enacted, so I am coming at this from a "the next morning" perspective as well). I make no apologies for that decision, and if faced with an identical one in the future I would likely do the same (assuming no new "rules" are introduced). If I have misread your statement please let me know. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
        • I think my frustration is that you have multiple people doing things, and it was a mess. I don't think anyone intentionally did anything "bad" and I'm not upset at any individual (who all technically acted within policy), but I think collectively, we failed the candidate, even while the individuals had the best of intentions. From my perspective, one of the things that people expect from Bureaucrats is order, as they typically did/do the boring but necessary things that just required emotionally detached and unbiased judgement. One of those is handing RFA, reading consensus in what is sometimes the most contentious discussions. Crats are the only group of people specifically selected to handle RFA, and let's be honest, if a Crat makes a call, the community has been good about accepting it due to the higher standards of getting the bit. I am not saying you should have reopened, I'm not sure what could have been done once it started. I'm saying what I said above, maybe we should discuss having only Crats close RFAs, so this doesn't happen in the future. It's hard enough to endure RFA, I know because mine was a mess. I just think a little more order would be helpful for all concerned, and it is worth discussing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This candidate passed the bar for minimum required experience set by Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed. So, again, there was no basis for unilaterally closing this as "not now" when the vote was 0–0. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    • This new two-day discussion scheme opened the door to allow bullies to bully candidates away from running without ever needing to personally go on record as opposing them, thus keeping their own hands clean. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
      Hysterics aren't helpful here. "Bullies keeping their hands clean" is probably better suited for Wikipediocracy. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
      Especially the first half of the RfA was quite friendly, much more so than the usual NOTNOW RfAs where we jump straight into voting. There is also nothing at all bad about opposing NOTNOW RfAs; the only option other than some people opposing them is to close the RfA before voting begins. —Kusma (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
      Wow, tell us how you really think. jp×g🗯️ 11:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Further related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Feedback on the "new RFA process". – wbm1058 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Insanely libelous usernames on the first page of Special:ListUsers

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
wrong noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have been looking at ! ! ! ! ! I'm HereToHelp! I like to fuck trees! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) every time I open Special:ListUsers for the last several years.

Is there really nothing at all that can be done about this?

Of course it would be impossible to do this for all offensive or insulting usernames -- and that string of characters will doubtless appear somewhere on Wikipedia -- but for the first couple pages of the list, surely we could get rid of the most obvious few, so that every single time someone went to the user list it wasn't giving them this crap? jp×g🗯️ 10:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess we could rename all blocked accounts with offensive usernames, unless they are in use elsewhere? Or we could (by default) not list indefinitely blocked users unless a box is unchecked?
I don't think this is a good topic for the bureaucrats, though. Idea lab or technical village pump, maybe? —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I had the idea somewhere in my noggin that crats did name changes, but I see now that this is untrue. Nonetheless! jp×g🗯️ 11:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#June 2024

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. ProveIt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: May 2008
  2. De728631 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: May 2023
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: August 2022
  2. Brianga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: July 2020

Desysop request (The Night Watch)

Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Night Watch (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) I'd like to hand in my bit for the time being. I'll stick to content and working with newbies since they always make me feel better. I'd like to retain autoreviewer, rollback and page mover if possible. Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, The Night Watch. English Wikipedia appreciates your efforts over the years, and we perfectly understand the desire to work without the mop for a while. BusterD (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Inactive Admin

Latest comment: 6 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Added Deville, last edit November 29, 2023, last Admin action February 4, 2023 - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs to be noted here. They edited six months ago, so there's nothing for 'crats to do for another six months, and I believe they have an automated process that generates the list of potential desyops each month. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it sucks when anyone suddenly stops showing up, but it's unfortunately a rather normal occurrence. This quarry query has 32 admins who haven't edited in the last six months, 25 of which have gone longer than DeVille has. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Fine, it was just a heads up, won't do it again. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@FlightTime: Oh it's not a problem that you added them, the page itself says to wait 3 months, so you're in the clear there. I hope they pop by but my point was just that this is, unfortunately, sadly, run of the mill, so it didn't really need a post here. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
whatever, thanx for your hospitality. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, we do have a bot track those approaching the cutoffs, it can be seen here: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Xaosflux: - FlightTime Public (open channel) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Deceased admin (Hyacinth)

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hyacinth (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te) I'm sorry to report that Hyacinth has passed away; see his talk page. Please therefore remove his admin permissions. He was listed in the inactive administrators report for June 2024. Graham87 (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 10:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#July 2024

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: July 2022
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
(none)

Resysop request (Isabelle Belato)

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Isabelle Belato (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Had to take a break some months back due to lack of time and energy. Due to recent RL events, I should have more time on my hands and would appreciate if I had access to the sysop tools restored. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be good to go following the standard 24-hour hold. 28bytes (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Modussiccandi)

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Modussiccandi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Hello, I want to give back the admin tools for the moment. I haven't been able to edit much over the last months and I feel I haven't been able to stay in touch with the community. Hoping to pick up the tools again when I have more time, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux Talk 20:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your service Modussiccandi, hope everything is going alright for you in real life. The Night Watch (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

JamesR

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all

It is with great sadness that I advise the passing of JamesR (talk · contribs), a longtime Wikipedia colleague of mine.

He was until September an administrator, when he voluntarily requested the tools be removed at this noticeboard (diff).

James also operated two bots, HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and AdminStatsBot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Both are still active. I will leave to those who know more about such things on the best course of action regarding this.

My best wishes to James' family and friends at this difficult time.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sad news. I've deactivated the bots as they have no operator now. Perhaps someone else will take over those tasks if needed. (More at WP:BOTN). — xaosflux Talk 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
So sad to read. JamesR was very helpful to me when I had questions about his very useful bots. I know that he gave up the mop last year but I appreciate you announcing the news here, Daniel. Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Int admin (2) for Izno

Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. Requesting interface admin back after my very-failed break (isn't that how it always works? :). Have more CSS work to do. Izno (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. Support this (although I think re-Iadmin requests can be done instantly by the first crat who sees them). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I have to say that I still have 2FA set up. Izno (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  Done. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Me getting attacked by a bunch of users" etc.

Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Has anyone passed this boring disruption on to the WMF? Is there any point in it? Before the proxying there were IPs and of course CU on the accounts has real information--I don't know if the lawyers and sleuths at the Foundation act on those things. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#So_what_are_we_doing_about_that_IP. I have taken no action here other than blocking some proxies. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this is a bureaucrat specific issue; is there something special that is needed from this team? — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Xaosflux I think Drmies is asking if the issue can be raised to the WMF. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The checkuser team (already mentioned) is under the auspices of arbcom, who has recurring meetings with WMF resources; the bureaucrat team has no such thing. So I'd suggest having the CU's escalate to arbcom if they need WMF support. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe Drmies posted here because the vandalism has spread to this board. Graham87 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe that at this point literally every single administrator and functionary has been, forcibly, made aware of this person's ridiculous and ignorant complaint dozens of times, owing to them spending several months making it thousands of times across every conceivable attack surface and every project on which it's possible for them to edit. There are only a couple ways for this to resolve: either they realize that nobody cares and it will never result in their unblock and they give up (extremely unlikely since they've already been told this hundreds of times), they get bored and stop, or we just figure out enough rangeblocks and edit filters that they have to spend two days figuring out a loophole to post their absurd thing and get reverted and blocked within 15 seconds. jp×g🗯️ 08:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux, I posted here because you guys are the highest of the highest and the best of the best, and I was hoping for...well I don't know. CU is really useless anyway; the CU data for the original account are clear and "real", but all these recent ones, it's just proxies. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, the volunteer teams that will get most attention from WMF resources are Arbcom and the stewards. Our stewards team will block open proxies that are brought to our attention - even if they are 'only disrupting enwiki', and can work with Trust and Safety if there is an overwhelming attack. We do not aggressively block all peer-to-peer proxies, as they are often single nodes on dynamic addresses. There used to be an adminbot here that would block proxies locally, but it stopped doing so back in March (see also Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ST47ProxyBot). If there is still community support for such, another admin could spin up a replacement if the original operator no longer wants to do this. — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Pppery)

Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pppery (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

Please remove my admin and interface admin rights. I would like to retain template editor, new page reviewer, and page mover which I held prior to my RfA. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to be able to edit extended-protected pages

Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  Not an issue for Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

I am requesting permission to be able to edit "extended-protected" pages. I have been editing Wikipedia for a very long time, however I do not yet have 500 edits. I mainly do edits when I see mistakes, etc. in pages that I am reading, plus I work on references and fix link rot. Today, I wanted to edit the Ukraine page, but I discovered that I cannot. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 08:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to make the request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Bureaucrats only handle the admin bit matters under very strict guidelines, not other permissions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I have a question for you because I have no idea where to ask this... I was reviewing my own contributions to Wikipedia and I was trying to look at edits I have done that were deleted to see what edits those were and to understand why they were deleted. However, it said that I could not see that information because I didn't have permission.[4] I think it would be beneficial for editors to be able to see why their edits were deleted. Where could I ask for a change in that policy so that the edits that are deleted are viewable by the person who made the edits? I think people should be able to review most stuff related to their own accounts. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 11:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
In the future, questions can be asked at WP:TEAHOUSE. The answer to this specific question is that mediawiki software feature requests should go on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org. It's a decent idea and probably worthy of a phabricator ticket. In fact a ticket may exist exist already. Try searching on phabricator for "Special:DeletedContributions should show non admins their own edits" or something similar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, such a ticket would probably be declined for anti-abuse reasons. It would eliminate the ability to decline a lot of WP:REFUNDs, for example. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#September 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Good Olfactory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: July 2021
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Hesperian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: December 2021
  2. I JethroBT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: January 2024

Desysop request (Woody)

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Woody (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I have not had any time to edit in any meaningful manner over the past few years. Can you please remove the admin bit from my account? Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Thank you for your service. Useight (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Dubious RfA page

Latest comment: 3 months ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Blockchain, which was created yesterday but never linked to WP:RFA, and whose creator-candidate is now blocked for socking. The page should probably be deleted, but I'm not sure whether that's within the crats' purview to do, so am asking the question here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting a ChatGPT vibe from the RFA answers too. If this ends up not qualifying for CSD, I would certainly !vote delete at MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't qualify for reason G5, which says, "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." I'm not sure any CSD criteria applies. I think the bureaucrat RFA moderation is intended to be limited to ensuring civility and stopping disruption. Useight (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it does qualify. The page was created after the original editor was blocked. Just not in this particular guise. SerialNumber54129 23:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Touché. Useight (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:CSD#G6 applied, but I *know* IAR applies. Deleted. I know this is the bureacrat's noticeboard, so I confirmed with User:Aardvark Floquenbeam that it was OK. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone doesn't get the joke, I don't blame you... it dates back 7 years. ([5]) Glad I'm not the only old-timer here. I've just had congratulations messages on my talk page for my first edit anniversary - that was 19 years ago. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
No issues with an IAR/G6 deletion for that; it's not going to go anywhere and is almost a G3/vandalism page. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

RfA closure.

Latest comment: 3 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hi folks, With full disclosure that I'm in the oppose camp on the current RfA of @Significa liberdade:, I did want to mention that @GreenLipstickLesbian: may be a serious enough issue to warrant extending the RfA. "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer." I'm by no means certain that that contribution is enough to justify extending the RfA, but I certainly think it's worth considering. I'm less of a hawk on copyright issues than many folks here and I find the specific example raised concerning. That said, it may have already been discussed, addressed, or otherwise explained--it's the first I've heard of it and I've not yet hunted down any context. But I think more time for folks to discuss this would might be wise. YMMV Hobit (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

(I suppose in the interest of transparency I should mention that I have supported the candidate) The fact that it wasn't brought up until the final few hours of the RFA isn't the candidate's fault, and it appears asked and answered to me. I wouldn't like to see a precedent set that asking a question at the eleventh hour should be grounds for extending an RFA, unless it was something far more severe than an attribution error. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
If the RfA isn't extended, there was an extra vote left after the RfA was placed on hold that should probably be reverted (cc Extraordinary Writ)? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's for the best if everyone just waits for what the crats decide to do. One vote at this point isn't going to change anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's closed as successfully now so I guess we got an answer. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth I did see this thread before the close, but as JSS indicated the 11th-hour oppose is problematic but not entirely disqualifying; it would have taken 15 editors defecting from support to even get the issue to a 'crat chat, let alone get them to the point of an "automatic" fail. Only one additional oppose !vote was added, and it did not even address the potential copyright issues. Needless to say, I am sure Significa liberdade will be more cautious in the future. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way—just while we're here—could you, Primefac, adjust the closing tally to reflect the accuracy we strive for nowadays? <99% should probably cover it... ;) SerialNumber54129 22:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, two secs, though I would have thought >75% would be more accurate. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Now that would please everyone 😀 SerialNumber54129 22:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Just noting, that now that I see the explanation, I find it believable and agree that there was no need to extend the RfA. I'm not thrilled with other issues in this RfA. And this specific thing (internal copying without attribution) is an issue, but certainly nothing so large I believe it would have swung the outcome, whereas I think a promotional copyright problem with an external site quite likely would have. Thanks folks. Hobit (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Wugapodes)

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Wugapodes (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I continue to have less time to volunteer than I would like. It's gotten to the point where simple requests are piling up and I've lost touch with CENT-level discussions. I'm not using them and it's more of a liability than an asset for the community at this point. Hopefully I will have more capacity for volunteer work in the future and I may request them again at that point. But until then it's best to leave block-delete-protect to those with the time and enthusiasm. I'd like to retain page mover and template editor which were the tools I enjoyed most before +sysop and which I will be most likely to use when poking around. Thanks for the ride, and feel free to say hi if you see my name pop up while I'm on wikibreak. — Wug·a·po·des 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done Enjoy your Wikibreak, and thanks for all you've done here. ϢereSpielChequers 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy the break! You are always welcomed back. :) – robertsky (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Inactive admins for October 2024

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Babajobu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: March 2023
  2. Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: September 2023
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Elf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: August 2020

Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

i'm sorry to see that designation go, but indeed I haven't done much in recent years. I gave it my all back in the early 2000s became horrifyingly addicted to editing, and finally had to pull away. I will always do small edits and sometimes bigger ones. but, thanks all who continued to contribute in bigger ways. Elf | Talk 03:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Xaosflux: Haven't the rights been removed yet? I was updating the admin newsletter and thought I should remind you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
They are about to be - I usually do these and was travelling! — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  Done with thanks for their prior service. — xaosflux Talk 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Resysop request (Crisco 1492)

Latest comment: 2 months ago19 comments9 people in discussion

Crisco 1492 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

  • I would like to request a re-sysop for myself, with the intent of helping with DYK and alleviating some of the backlog. I have reviewed the criteria for re-sysopping outside of the RFA process, and I believe that I meet them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    They resigned the admin tools in August 2018 (BN request, confirmed here). Last logged admin action was a 1-year self-block in 18 August 2018, previous action was a deletion two days prior. They returned to editing for three edits in October-November 2019, and then in batches from July 2020, so there has been no 2 year period of complete inactivity. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Over five years since administrative tools were last used might apply here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    That only applies in inactivity removals, while Crisco resigned their access. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hmm. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools needs some clarifying then. The way I'm reading it it seems like any of the bullets in that bulleted list are disqualifying for resysop requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
    In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request seems fairly clear that this point only applies in cases of removal for inactivity. I'm not sure policy ever anticipated this particular scenario. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    It's hard to imagine any other scenario it would be there for. (And IIRC we rejected a modification to remove it in the same RFC that added the 5 year/100 edit rule. Nope, the one before it.) —Cryptic 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    The scenario it is there for is for an admin who is procedurally desysopped for inactvity, for example Jayron32 has just been desysopped for inactivity. Their last admin action was September 2023, so they can request the tools back at any point until August 2028 (assuming they don't have any two-year period of complete inactivity). Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    It's hard to imagine any other scenario, besides this particular one, that the "In the case of removal due to inactivity" clause would be there for. (Or, equivalently, "if they are removed for inactivity" from the original RFC.) Since you can only get resysopped on request if you lost the bit for inactivity or by resigning. —Cryptic 12:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    There are two scenarios in which you can get the bit back by asking:
    • After removal due to inactivity
    • After removal due to resignation (this scenario)
    The five-year clause explicitly only applies to the first scenario, and the 2019 RFC you linked did not reach a consensus to apply it to the second one too (in fact there was actually slightly more opposition than support). Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I was responding to JSS's statement above that policy hadn't ever anticipated this scenario (that is, a former administrator who'd resigned, either over five years ago, or merely while their last logged action was over five years ago), despite it being worded for no other imaginable reason than to anticipate it - both in the current version of policy and in its original proposal. (Maybe we can track down that Beeblebrox guy who made the proposal and ask him.) —Cryptic 12:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    Ah I see. I missed the In the case of removal due to inactivity part. My brain didn't expect it to be there or something and paid attention only to the bold. Carry on :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
well this is good news! Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back Crisco! There's a 24 hour pause on resysops these days, and nearly 21 hours of that still to run. But I'm sure DYK will be glad of your return. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: Huh? It's been over 24 hours since the resysop request was posted ... it was posted yesterday. I was expecting to do my regular changes to the former admins pages tonight ... Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, I seem to have lost a day here. Careless of me. Bit flipped now. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done

Rights restored. Welcome back! ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Bot flag

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please grant bot flag to the approved bot, DreamRimmer bot. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux Talk 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

De-adminship request for Thue

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Thue (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

I have not been taking active part in admin activities for a long time, and do not have concrete plans to resume. And I am out of the loop with regards to current practice for administrators. Hence it seems appropriate to de-admin me, as remaining administrator would be meaningless and misleading. Thue (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Can I just say that I really appreciate the the honesty and self-reflection of this request. We need more of that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you :). Thue (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_49&oldid=1251124658"