Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 40

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Resysop request (Master Jay)

As previously noted, this is not the best venue for discussing inactivity and proposals to change the current rules. Please direct all such comments to the current discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 19 February 2019 (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.

Master Jay (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)

De-sysoped 17 days ago due to inactivity the last year. I have now returned, and kindly request re-sysoping. Regards Jay(Talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? I've no great understanding of how this board works but surely making one or two edits annually around the time that the bit might be lost is gaming the system? And I make it 50 edits in total since some time in 2010 - I don't see how anyone can keep on top of changes to policies and guidelines etc with that sort of volume, even with the recently introduced admin newsletter. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank goodness for those two logged admin actions since 2010 eh :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this. As I understand it, only ArbCom and the WMF can desysop, except for inactivity or user self-request. However, there must be some sort of moral imperative/good faith to the rest of the community involved when requesting resysop after inactivity. No? - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I find no fault with Jay. The community is intelligent enough to pass a proposal requiring one/10/100 logged administrative actions every year, if it wants. And if such a proposal hasn't passed yet, the community has no right demanding anything to the opposite from reapplying former administrators. Lourdes 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It was clearly sarcastic. Not subtly, either. I would suggest snarking here is not helping anyone or anything and if you dislike the existing inactivity policy, go participate in the discussion about changing it. Fish+Karate 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As much as I have reverted my post; it's prudential enough to note that Jay's last sysop request contained precisely nil words (in what was commented by a 'crat to be one of the most verbose requests; snarky?).
    With practically nil activity in the last few years; he returns and stakes a claim to his inalienable right just because he has returned. ∯WBGconverse 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Master Jay, as part of your requirement to be accountable for your administrative actions, would you please explain why, as your only two logged actions in nearly a decade, you made the decision to both protect the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after a single vandalizing edit, and to also block the IP that made the edit? Could you please explain how these actions conform to current policy and community norms with regard to blocking and protection? Could you also please explain why you felt it necessary to revoke talk page access for the IP, and how this conforms to current policy and community norms with regard to revoking talk page access for anonymous users? Could you also please explain why you did not feel it necessary, when revoking talk page access for an IP, to notify the user of what steps to take to request an unblock, in the case that an unrelated individual found themselves editing on what may have been a dynamic IP?
Could you also provide your opinion, under the same policy regarding administrator accountability, why you feel the community should not see what is fairly obvious and egregious gaming our inactivity requirements as a form of bad-faith adminship, and why an individual engaged in such a pattern of editing should not raise serious concerns that they may no longer enjoy the trust or confidence of the community? GMGtalk 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to this, since the only edit other than requesting the tools back since January 2, 2018 was this, it would be good to hear that Master Jay did not request the tools because he intended to block an IP/protect a page due to a single edit again this time. Dekimasuよ! 21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While it's not a rationale to prevent re-granting the tools, I feel obliged to ask Master Jay whether he expects to be more active in the project over the next 8 years than he was over the last 8 years. If that's not the case, I suggest he withdraw this request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In inactivity resysops, perhaps we need to somehow require, at the least, that the simple question, 'why do you request resyssop' be addressed, so the community can get an idea over-time why this pattern occurs. Also, it appears we can't assume, voluntary forthcoming-ness under WP:ADMINACCT to get this info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Alanscottwalker, I support requiring a basic answer to this. We should require it's posted after a Crat confirms it to prove they'll come back. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I can understand the objections here, existing policy is, imho, rather clear. Essentially I echo what Lourdes said: If you want change, change the activity standards for admins. Lectonar (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome back. If people want to reform the system, they should vote in the RfC, but thus far, the community has intended for requests like this to be granted. Some even turn out to be pretty active (see Cyp). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the RfC until Xaosflux mentioned it. Had a quick look and it seems to be more concerned about the possibility of compromised accounts. My concern is gaming the system, bad faith and the likelihood of not being competent. I can't help feeling that admins are circling the wagons but will have to have a further think. This particular request, however, absolutely stinks and I hope that Master Jay realises it (although judging by their past activity, they may not even see this discussion until after it has been nodded through). - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While the community for the moment agrees that this kind of requests for resysopping should be granted, that goes for uncontroversial requests. With the only logged actions in the last couple of years being rather bad calls, it would appear to me that this request is not uncontroversial and I for one would not protest if the 'crats did not honor this request. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Randykitty, This is controversial, I suggest they do refuse it. Obvious gaming of a policy should not allow them to keep adminship. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RhinosF1 (and others) Crats are duty-bound to follow policy on resysopping. You can find it spelled out at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions. There's no room for the interpretation you seek without community consensus, which has been sought and denied more than once. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Struck. See below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but whatever, the 'duty-boundness' is (and suddenly it's 'duty', when seemingly at convenience at other times, it's voluntary), anyone is still free to ask questions, comments, or concerns and even offer advice if they wish to do so. Otherwise, the alternative is, 'no one cares' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is unfathomably stupid and a clear gaming of the system. It is obvious that these types of situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis instead of constantly letting people make one or two edits and logged actions to maintain permissions that they clearly do not want to use. The bureaucrats need to determine if trust is lost by these inactive sysops and send it back to the community to determine if they should stay. If they are unwilling to go through the modern RfA, then it is clear that they are not committed to the role. I highly doubt the community would be interested in resysoping someone who has been inactive and gaming the system for 12 years. Nihlus 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Nihlus, Agreed, We need to take this stance. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: I reviewed Master Jay's contributions and do not believe that it is in the best interests of the project to fulfill this request. The request, while perhaps falling within the letter of the resysop policy, is outside of its spirit and intent as Master Jay has not made more than token contributions for over eight years. I would encourage Master Jay to rejoin the project in earnest prior to requesting the return of rights. Other 'crats may see it differently and may choose to act. UninvitedCompany 18:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    UninvitedCompany, Thanks for seeing it from how the rest of us do, This is what we have WP:IAR for. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with 'token contributions' to game the system. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think IAR should apply to a situation within a well defined policy. On the other hand, choosing not to use the tools that have been given to you is not IAR, it's part of policy. Any or all crats can choose to ignore the request. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Natureium, True they can refuse to take action on any request. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that crats aren't, really, "duty bound" to do anything, no arms are being forced here. If issues have been raised on this noticeboard questioning a resysop, and yet crats feel feel they do not come within the criteria of refusal, that doesn't mean they have no choice other than to flick the bit. Since it is the community that elects its sysops—and is the first damaged by rogue elements—then send it back to the community via WP:AN. The crats can then bask in the self-satisfaction that whatever they do is the result of a community consensus. I beieve, in the vernacular, it's called covering one's back... 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129
The best way to gain experience is listening and observation. ——SerialNumber54129 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I do not have a policy based stance for this opinion, I will say that I will be actively not fulfilling this request. I encourage Master Jay to withdraw it, and spend a little time bringing himself up to speed through editting before re-requesting, and if he decides to do so, it should be considered without prejudice. WormTT(talk) 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Expounding upon this slightly, there are now more responses to this request than edits by Master Jay in the 2010s. Without meaning to browbeat anyone, a clueful response to this would be to reflect upon the community response here, withdraw the request, and let everyone get back to editing. Dekimasuよ! 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've struck my comments above because I do think, on reflection, there is a policy-based reason to pause and reflect here. Our policy states:

If a former administrator has been administratively inactive (defined by zero logged administrative actions) for a period of five years or longer at the time of their last administrative rights removal, and the removal was for inactivity, they should be successful in a new request for adminship to have the permission(s) restored.

In the last 8 years, this user has performed two logged administrative actions. However, GreenMeansGo has pointed out that the two logged actions are both exceedingly dubious. I no longer know where I stand on this request and while I think I'd still feel obligated by policy to return the tools, I think this needs further thought - and over a longer period than 24 hours.

Two requests:

  1. I'd like to ask the requester to reconsider, per Alfie and Worm That Turned.
  2. I would like to see a response here before anyone returns the tools.

If Master Jay states that they are determined to regain the toolset, I would support a Cratchat, because these are unusual circumstances. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see what there is for the crat to chat about. Master Jay is perfectly entitled within the policy set by the community to request it back. There is no policy based reason for the crats to formally refuse the request. The crats are however also not obliged to action it either. If all of you want to pocket veto it, that's your prerogative. However, I feel a formal crat chat which effectively lead to a formal decision (if it is a negative one) even if it's not phased like that wouldn't be right. -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as as black and white. His last valid administrative action was in 2010. He even had a period of 8 years with no logged actions. It just so happened that this time he forgot to make a token edit to avoid being desysoped. If the crats see his only 2 actions since 2010 as being outside of administrative policy, they may decide that they don't qualify. Natureium (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no policy based reason to refuse to return the tools that I am aware of other than IAR and COMPULSORY, which is just a passive way of saying IAR. There is however nothing preventing someone from immediately opening a request for arbitration based on an apparent bad faith resysop request, misuse of the admin tool set in 100% of their uses over the past several years (did you know the Vatican has on average 2 Popes per square kilometer?) and failure to respond to a civil request for clarification regarding ADMINACCT. But if we are going to refuse return of the tools via COMPULSORY, then that needs to be an individual decision. Doing so via crat chat would amount to making policy. If you would like to delay the request for the individual to respond, and decide whether an immediate arbitration case is what they would like to do going forward, then that is of course perfectly covered by COMPULSORY, IAR, as well as COMMONSENSE. GMGtalk 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship, adminship is restored unless: 1) It was resigned under a cloud; 2) There were over three years without an edit; 3) There were over five years without using the admin tools; or 4) The account has been compromised. None of these criteria have been met. Yes, there was a five year period without using the tools, but the two in January broke the streak just prior to the inactivity removal process. There have been multiple attempts to change the criteria to something more strict, but none have been successful, so it appears the community is presently fine with the criteria as it exists. Taking off my bureaucrat hat for a moment, I have always opposed requiring admin actions to avoid inactivity desysops, because it could result in a hasty and possibly incorrectly-done admin action. Putting my 'crat hat back on, the policy states specifically that it has to be five years "since administrative tools were last used." There is nothing mentioned about 'how well' they need to have been used. Obviously the 'crats are not robots, but we have a very narrow scope. I'm not (yet) seeing a policy-based reason to explicitly decline the request. Useight (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If someone makes a hasty admin decision because they feel under pressure regarding a proposed inactivity desysop, they probably shouldn't have the tools anyway. There are an unbelievable number of entirely mundane admin actions they could take. As for the policy thing, I think most people commenting here already accept that but they want some common sense to be applied by some means or another. It is not an unreasonable sentiment in such an extreme case. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should probably be granted. (Unfortunately the bureaucrats' noticeboard is a particularly unsuitable venue for alluding to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.) But it should not have been requested, and I don't think most of the changes in the RfC will help matters much if an editor decides to be POINTy about retaining or regaining the tools. Dekimasuよ! 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •  Bureaucrat note: I’d like to see responses from Master Jay on the questions and concerns raised above as required by the administrator accountability policy. –xenotalk 23:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lourdes and Mz7. Change the rules if you want them changed, but until then this is an open-and-shut case. And actually there is a valid reason for the user to reattain the tools, because perhaps they anticipate a more full time comeback in the future, if they don't get the tools back then the clock is ticking down to when they would need a fresh RfA.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no problems restoring the +sysop bit here. After the Cyp debacle of two years ago, I proposed a tightening up of the inactivity policy based on that discussion (see diff). Needless to say, it sank like a lead balloon. The current RfC on inactivity isn't doing so hot either. Point being is ... the community cannot have its cake and eat it. Either we have clear consensus to amend the activity requirements or we enforce the existing policy, regardless of an admin doing a bare minimum. Maxim(talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, for right or wrong, Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards clearly shows that the community is not willing to tighten admin activity requirements, so as much as I might sympathize with the concerns expressed by the commenters here, the crats can't unilaterally tighten those requirements ourselves. That said, I think it would be wise if no one flipped the bit before Master Jay has had the chance to answer the legitimate questions that have been posed to him. The 24-hour hold is a minimum, not a deadline, and there's really no rush, especially in a case like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, that's probably the prerogative of crats, to extend the 24 hour period. But I think it's unfair to do that and almost equivalent to a crat supervote that the bit is not given until a response is provided. If you have been doing this in all your past bit flips, the current suggestion would have been okay. But it's probably not right to ask other crats to not give the bit till the response is given – akin to ad-hoc creation of a different standard for Jay, something like "only administrators we're comfortable with can enter without answering questions"; really not nice and something that reminds me of....(yes, you got it). Lourdes 03:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I think it's a wise move on the part of the crats to ask for a response to the concerns raised here before flipping the bit. I can only imagine that if they had mechanically just granted the mop that someone (either from this conversation directly, or watching it) will go straight to ArbCom to have those same questions formally asked in a case request Dax Bane 03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Crats are not supposed to help resolve supposedly potential ArbCom cases. This is absolutely not required. Jay's account is not compromised and there is no policy basis for delaying flipping the bit, supposedly on common sense. Lourdes 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • As at the open RfC, this is admins protecting their own. I understand that there is a policy in place but admins are quite happy to use IAR when it suits them. The RfC doesn't show a "failure of the community" in wanting change, it shows a circling of the wagons by admins and I'm not even sure if it was well-publicised. It isn't often that I criticise the admin as a corps but they are collectively failing the community here. I'm going to post a random note at the RfC - it won't fit in sequence with anything in particular but it is a commentary on that process. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
              • Sitush, you know how I respect your views. That said, I have no love for Jay or his adminship. I have objection with some of the crats attempting to use IAR over policy – the community has been very clear that that's not their job; and if, in this case, some of them are trying to do so, I'm opposing that pov tooth and nail. Lourdes 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, I keep seeing comments along those lines - that the community has been clear re 'crat role etc - but I've never seen an example of it in all the years I've been here, which is approximately the same length of time that Master Jay has done bugger all. Perhaps I have been too busy improving the 'pedia or perhaps my memory is even worse than I already think it is. Either way, your fighting tooth and nail on a matter of principle is precisely the problem here. Dogmatism has never been a successful strategy for humankind. And doing things "on the nod" often produces poor outcomes, too. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Having come back from an inactivity desysop myself back in 2011, I understand where Jay might be coming from. I've emailed them and encouraged them to come here and answer some of the concerns presented. Policy is pretty clear in this case - the bit should be returned. SQLQuery me! 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I mentioned above that I have no policy based reason for my stance, Dweller has helpfully pointed out some bureaucratic grey area. In addition however, I will say that Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive - and IAR states that you should take an action which improves the encyclopedia, no matter what the rules say - this is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, resysopping Master Jay, in these circumstances, harms the encyclopedia. Not directly (I have no doubt that Master Jay is an excellent individual and would not abuse the tools) but indirectly, falsely inflating the numbers of available admins and giving editors and readers a false impression. In addition, without commenting here, the individual is ignoring the fact that he is accountable to the community.
    When it comes down to it, I won't blame any crat who does resysopping the individual, but I appeal to Master Jay themselves, if you won't withdraw and prove yourself (I'm not asking much, maybe a month of editting to show you do intend to return) - at least discuss the matter here. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Colleagues - I have read through all your comments. I have meant no harm or foul in procedurally requesting this resysop due to inactivity. I plan on participating again earnestly. Thank you. Jay(Talk) 08:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding. Are you going to address the concerns raised above by GMG regarding your only admin actions in the last 8 years or so? And do you understand why people have concerns that you are gaming the system? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: To me this is less a problem with the rules per se (although I disagree with the rules and would like them either specifically changed, or at least modified with some additional wording to address circumstances such as this), and more a problem of WP:GAMING and WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Because of those two items, the issue might better be addressed at WP:AN if the tools are restored here. Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly what SQL said. I know there's an element of WP:VOLUNTEER here - we can't require the crats to do anything, individually or collectively - but the whole point of this policy is that the bit will be returned on request, provided there are no account-compromise issues. Lots of other things unravel - especially the notion that admins should welcome inactivity desysopping and even drop the bit on purpose if they know they'll be inactive because it's a useful security measure - if the community doesn't uphold its end of the bargain and return it. I don't know why people discussing inactivity always jump to weird conspiracy conclusions like "admins circling the wagons!!!" as if any one particular member of a group of 1200 would feel a specific desire to protect some other member they've never interacted with or even heard of, but for some reason conspiracy theories are always more persuasive than input by people who have actually been in the situation of an inactive returning admin. And having actually been there, I thought it was a reasonable enough decision that someone who'd been gone for such a long time couldn't have the bit back just by asking - but if I'd read the policy and it said I could, and then when I followed the policy, I got a bunch of comments like these disparaging my motivations, questioning my good faith, and using my otherwise uninteresting request as a platform for advocating for their preferred wikipolitical reforms, I would probably have decided I could find a different hobby. (And a few readers sigh and wish it had come to pass... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, Opabinia regalis, you don't like me so you're going to find issues in my wording. It isn't a conspiracy theory, though. I have no theory and have specifically pointed out that I am not usually a critic of the admin corps. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You did say however "this is admins protecting their own" (which btw stopped me from leaving my own opinion in this thread, because a month ago I was dragged into an arbitration case following the allegations of "this is admins protecting their own", and the allegations continued even after the case was closed). Let us be careful with what we say please.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not a lawyer, here or in the real world, and I come from an area where a spade is called a spade. I don't faff about with words, just tell it how it seems to be to me. I'm not au fait with a lot of jargon, eg: the whole LGBT thing, where the letters in the acronym frequently seem to change and people are quick to take offence if you don't know the current formulation. I have no desire to be an admim or arbitrator etc and know that I am temperamentally unsuited anyway but if someone doesn't know what I mean then that usually says more about them than me. I have a reputation for being patient here, despite what some seem to think, and generally I am most grateful to admins and regularly thank them for their work, either publicly or via the logged thanks mechanism. When I say that admins seem to be circling the wagons, that is how it looks to me using simple language but it is not a suggestion that there is some long-term conspiracy. There are people who think the corps are the devil's spawn etc; I'm not even close. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Sitush: Hmm? I don't think I have any opinions about you in particular; if I spent my time disliking everyone who'd said something insensitive once, I'd never get anything else done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As someone who's been in the position of being inactivity-removed from Arbcom, which surely scores more martyrdom points than a mere inactivity-desysop, and who gets on fine with OR, I find the concerns of Sitush (and others) entirely reasonable. To make a somewhat forced analogy, if I'd only driven a car twice in the past eight years and on both of those occasions I ran a red light and crashed, and subsequently failed to renew my driving license, I feel the DMV would be within their rights to ask "are you sure?" if I subsequently tried to renew the license without re-sitting my test, even if there's no legal obligation on me to do so. (@OR, if you want a non-forced analogy, as a former Arb I'm theoretically entitled to ask for both the CU and OS bits back at any time. If I were to pop up asking for them back, do you think that would be uncontroversial and automatic?) ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see why not - I'm sure someone would ask if you know how to use CU still or suggest training, but OS, sure.
    Anyway, I usually show up to these 'admin inactivity' discussions to say the same thing, but I'm not opposed to implementing different standards now. I'm opposed to retroactively applying whatever standard the subset of people commenting on BN wish were in effect. Sorry, the DMV is too forced for me - crashing your car might kill somebody, occasional admin mistakes are mostly just someone being wrong on the Internet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The standard is accountable. Master Jay wants a position where he or she will be held accountable. So, being held to account can be no serious travail, rather expected. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It it a bit too easy to let off the whole situation as an exercise in nihilistic politics. Intuitive morality is often a very bad morality, but that doesn't mean we ought to abandon our common sense in calling a spade a spade, when a situation presents itself that seems on its face to run counter to the spirit of the project. There are certainly some here for whom this is merely their preferred mode of social media, but I'd like to think that for most of us it isn't just some thing on the internet, but that there's some calculation about the best use of our philanthropic free time, and the value of free knowledge factors into that equation. There is certainly some empathy to be had for the good faith returning admin, but there should also be some empathy to be had for the good faith user who has to deal with someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and is apt to waste limited time by having permissions they only enjoy through esoteric rules and historical happenstance, rather than an accurate measure of their ability to use that access to effectively accomplish shared goals. Unfortunately, that interaction most often doesn't happen with the spotlight of BN, but in the dimly lit corners of mainspace. It's not quite even handed to dismiss those of us who populate those corners as nihilistic partisans for being concerned about their well being.
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above. I presume I will receive one promptly, in accordance with our special esoteric rules. GMGtalk 13:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I’ll answer the question since it’s a non-issue that wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows if people weren’t mad about the apparent gaming the article history shows 17 rollbacks and 21 undos in the last 250 edits. Some of those are active editors undoing eachother, but I think it’s fair to say the majority of them are vandalism or disruption by IP users. Indeed looking at the article history, it’s difficult to find good edits by IPs or unregistered users at that page. So protection would likely have been granted at RFPP considering the long-term issues on the page (plus it was pending changes, which does exactly nothing big picture.)
In terms of the block death threats qualify for automatic blocking, and that was the IPs only other edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If someone is protecting articles at RFPP for a week, that haven't seen anything but a single vandalizing edit in twice that period, then please draw our attention to the issue so that I may address it on the user's talk page. The rest I'm pretty sure you understand anyway, and so there's really no reason for me to explore it in any detail. Although I'll grant that emphasizing the good block and glossing over the rest is probably the most defensible rhetorical claim to stake out here. That doesn't mean it's a strong argument, because it isn't, but it probably is the best one available. GMGtalk 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
We regularly protect articles with no good IP edits in their history, and admins are usually thanked for doing so. Par for the course doesn’t suddenly become an egregious policy violation because the person is requesting a resysop and isn’t particularly active. We’re literally talking about the least effective and lowest level admin action possible (pending changes) on an article with long-term IP and non-autoconfirmed disruption at a slow burning level, but where there were virtually no good edits from IPs dating back years. I personally don’t ever see the point in pending changes, but this is actually the type of situation it was designed for. At the very least, if someone had protected it at RFPP and blocked the most that would have happened was “Meh, judgement call, not worth fighting over because pending changes isn’t a big deal and the block was justified.” He’s resysoped now, and fighting over a year old action that was arguably justified at AN or BN is pointless. I support raising the inactivity criteria to include a logged actions standard, but I do not support making up policy violations that no one cared about at the time in order to try to get around the fact that to dislike the community does not have a stronger stance on inactivity. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, from your defense, I suppose that an IP issuing such death threats ought have their TPA revoked, too? Under what policy does that happen? ∯WBGconverse 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently unprotected, and has been unprotected since OP's protection expired nearly five years ago. You really don't have an argument there, and if you want to have a productive discussion, it's probably a good start to stipulate that we don't regularly protect articles over a single instance of vandalism. Otherwise I'm not sure I have patience for all that posturing. But I'm quite sick at the moment, so I don't have very much patience for very much at all. Personally, I'm not fighting over anything. I'm simply patiently waiting for the user to return to the project in earnest as they have indicated, and provide some rationale for their decision making as required by policy. I believe they have been notified of this now four times by four separate users. I figure that, given their activity levels, a month or so is a reasonable time frame for a response. GMGtalk 16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pleased Master Jay has returned and confirmed their desire for the tools. I've thought and thought and thought but find no reason to withhold the tools based on policy. This is the most extreme case I've yet seen: no valid admin actions in 8 years, but 2 admins actions that technically meet the criteria. It seems I'm not the only one finding this tricky (Crats have posted here with a multiplicity of views) but I would on balance be prepared to return the tools, although I put on record my squirming discomfort at doing so. But Crats have deliberately been constrained by the community to have very little discretion except in very specific areas, and this isn't one of them. I'll do it, if I'm first to it at expiry time, with some distaste. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Ok, Dweller. What would then be the best venue to challenge this situation? AN and ArbCom have been mentioned above. Not challenging the policy-compliant resysop'ing but rather the justification for being a sysop, especially bearing in mind their inactivity and poor use of the tools. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Procedurally, it should go to AN before ArbCom, since ArbCom requires other steps in dispute resolution to be attempted first. I think there is a massive case for lack of policy knowledge (due to near-total absence for the past 12 years [1]), bad use of tools, gaming, and lack of admin accountability. (Plus even after being emailed with a request to respond to the various concerns here, he effectively has not.) Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I urge Master Jay to read what I wrote on his user talk very carefully indeed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  • RFA: "You made less than a 1000 edits in the past 3 months. Sorry, try again later when you've become more active".
BN: "Thank you for your 20 edits in the past 5 years. Here's your bit back".
Regardless of the validity of Jay's request to be reinstated, this ever increasing disparity is probably Wikipedia's biggest running gag. --Atlan (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup. To those (generally admins themselves, ironically) who repeatedly wonder/bemoan why good candidates aren't running for RfA, here's a possible answer: why go through the mill for a week when a legacy admin with no intention of rejoining the community gets it for nothing. Yes, it's too bad / just the way it is / so always it has been, etc., but—so is the shortage of admins, so we're told. Wanting cake and eating it springs to mind. ——SerialNumber54129 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd be prepared to wager that for every 1 user who's put off running at RfA by that problem, there'll be several hundred who are put off by unreasonably high standards some RfA !voters have and the occasionally febrile atmosphere and fear over even ancient skeletons in cupboards being seized upon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The numbers are a distraction: it's the fact that we had a chance to abjure one small element of the problem...and chose not to do so. ——SerialNumber54129 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but the only choice the Bureaucrats had under policy in this case was to leave it for another Bureaucrat to handle. If you'd like Bureaucrats to have more discretion, we'll need a consensus discussion with a clear result to change policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dweller: Thanks. For something more hypothetical—but which could theoretically have happened—what if no individual crat was personally willing to action it? Although it is hypothetical (and more curiosity at this stage), a couple of your colleagues indiated theywere not, so it's certainly possible I guess. What would the ex-admin do if no crat replied to their request? Sta on their ands, effectively, and didn't say anything; what recourse would the ex-ad have? ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that the Historical Unfairness of Increasing Standards for Adminship is a topic better-suited for WT:RFA than this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to steer the conversation in that direction, but merely making a comparison. In my view, the inactivity policy requirements are so low as to be nearly ineffectual (as proven in this thread), and the RFA requirements are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Both are silly, and compared to one another they are sillier yet.--Atlan (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping all admins here would've declined the request...., Nothing against Jay but I whole heartedly disagree with giving the bit to someone who's never ever here, Suppose we only have policy to blame really. –Davey2010Talk 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick question, as I have been trying to get up to speed on the history of changes in the inactivity policy and how it relates to those who voluntarily give up the tools to go on a break. When changes such as the one in 2012 were made (see here), was the intention that those who gave up the tools voluntarily, thinking that they would be able to ask for them back at any subsequent point, would be told later that policy had changed and they were now required to do things differently? My reading of the history of the changes is that this is indeed what has happened. Am I right to read it that way, that if policy changes while you are away, that resysop requests are done according to the current policy, rather than policy at the time you went on the break (regardless of how long the break was)? Also, is any attempt made to notify those on a break of such changes in policy if it affects them? Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the admins that were inactive at the time of the implementation of the inactivity policy were notified of the change and given a grace period to return. There were 230 desysops in July 2011. However, it is generally the responsibility of individual editors to know of changes in policy. We do have the Administrators Newsletter, which helps people stay on top of policy changes. Useight (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
More generically: as a fluid project, policies may change at any time. Unless a policy change contain specific grandfathering provisions the current policy is the one that should be applied at the time of any action. — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So where do we stand? Dweller reluctantly granted him back his tools, feeling that the current rules required it. I commend you for that, Dweller; I could tell you didn't like doing it but felt someone had to. There was some talk here about a CIR- and ADMINACCT- related case at AN. Is someone going to launch one? Right away, or wait to see what he does - will he carry through on his supposed plan to "participate again earnestly"? Will he bother to respond to all the questions he was asked here and on his talk page? Or will he let it go with the three edits he has made and vanish for another year? I would hate to see us all go away and drop it, so he can sit on his unused and unneeded tools until next February, when he makes another couple of edits and retains the bit for another year - and so on ad infinitum. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN, I'm not sure what we can do. As Dweller has correctly pointed out, while the policy may be shittily worded it's still the policy, and Jay is technically completely within his rights to game the system like this. The admin toolset should be much more easy-come-easy-go, but every time changing the rules to tighten the inactivity requirements has been proposed, a swarm of existing admins has come out of the woodwork to oppose it so the discussions get stuck at "no consensus". I'd be very reluctant to set a precedent for sanctioning anyone for following Wikipedia's rules, even when the rules are clearly perverse; besides, Jay is hardly the first legacy admin to make their one token edit when necessary to keep the bit and until we change the rules won't be the last. ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: & @Iridescent: Personally, one could make a WP:ADMINACCT case if Master Jay doesn't fully respond to the questions above in the next day or two. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
What part of WP:ADMINACCT do you think applies here? That procedure is specifically that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools; when someone has no actions, there's by definition nothing for which they can be accountable. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There were several people here who felt that his last use of admin tools[2] was incorrect or problematic. They asked him about it. He has not addressed their concerns or responded in any way. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, as being highly relevant to the above discussion, please note the following three responses made by Jay on their talk page (after the discussion was closed here): [3], [4], [5]. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2019 (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.

Five year rule

Unresolved
 – The changes were reverted in this edit, further discussion should take place at WT:ADMIN. Bureaucrats will be guided by the policy page.
I split this to a new section as it wasn't really about the prior requester so much as a general inquiry. — xaosflux Talk 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (though the absence of grandfathering clauses does discourage people handing in the tools when going on a long break). Would it be possible to say what the current requirements are for me in terms of activity (both editing and admin actions) if I went inactive now (with or without voluntarily giving up the sysop bit), and how I or any other admin considering going inactive and/or handing in their bit, would work out these requirements (i.e. is the length of time calculated from the point of going inactive or from the last logged action)? Or is it generally considered that active admins should be capable of working this out themselves? The reason I ask is that the current wording of the policy seems to imply that if an admin has had no logged actions for over five years (but has been editing), and they voluntarily give up their bit, then they are also giving up the right to request the bit back and have to go through RfA again. I am not sure this is actually what was intended, but I think the current wording does imply that. (If this should be a new section, feel free to create that.) Also, would my talk page be the only place I would get notified of any changes to this inactivity policy? Thank you for the reminder about the Administrators' newsletter. Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: the verbiage of the updates to the newer '5 year rule' was a bit clumsy, and the last time it was discussed the current summary was born: For any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request. In this case it doesn't matter how/why someone stopped being an admin. — xaosflux Talk 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As far does someone have to personally deliver policy change news to you: nope (there is no policy that requires such :D ) - though things like ADMINNEWS usually to carry this information. — xaosflux Talk 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, where was that discussion of the verbiage to the five year rule? The original RFC was to apply that five year rule only to former administrators who were desysopped for inactivity, not voluntary removal. That is to say, an admin who hadn't made a logged edit in five years, requested tool-removal on BN, and then requested them back the next day, would get them back. Useight (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Useight: it was updated by User:UninvitedCompany following discussions here last year. — xaosflux Talk 18:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_39#Refactor_of_Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship. -- KTC (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe the original RFC was extremely unclear. The originator of the RFC used confusing language that resulted in a "No" !vote being a vote in support of a policy change. Several early expressions of support (er, "No" !votes) offered tweaks to the wording, and the closing summary was a broader change than the original proposal. I believe that the closing summary -- that adminship should not automatically be restored when 5 years has elapsed between the last logged action and the request for restoration of access -- is a reasonably accurate reading of the community sentiment at the time of the RFC. My updates to the policy page reflected that. UninvitedCompany 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. The original wording was added here (by Lourdes). The change that UninvitedCompany made is here. The major change by UninvitedCompany in the wording is to the status of those who request voluntary removal. Previously, those who requested voluntary removal could ask for the tools back at any time. This has been changed to this '5-year rule' regardless of whether the tools were removed for inactivity or voluntarily given up. This was clearly not the intent of the original RfC. I am pinging Beeblebrox (who started that RfC) and the closer (Fish and karate) to try and get this clarified. The question I am trying to get a clear answer to is whether an admin who is actively editing but not using the tools, and voluntarily gives them up, will be affected by this five-year rule? It may be that a further RfC is needed to clarify this, and that in the meantime the previous wording should be restored. On a slightly pedantic point, can a request to give up the admin tools (which will get logged by the bureaucrat action) be considered a 'logged admin action'? Technically, no, but it does show that the admin is active and taking an action in relation to their tools. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Carcharoth. What Uninvited has done with their edit is in the spirit of the connected RfC; but the fact is that the said RfC never focused on the voluntary stuff. Revert till clarified by consensus. Lourdes 11:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I closed the RFC as I saw it, how that translates into changes to Wikipedia:Administrators wasn't really in the scope of the RFC, but I would say two things - one, the RFC covered inactivity-removals only, so whether that five year requirement should also extend to those who have voluntarily handed in the bit is not determined within the RFC I closed, and two, the amount of times this will ever practically matter is going to be really, really small, we're now talking about edge cases of edge cases. On the pedantic point, I would say no, a request to give up the tools is not a logged admin action by the (former) administrator in question, it's a logged action by the bureaucrat who fulfilled the request. Fish+Karate 13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair point about edge cases. I found the admins-by-editing-activity tracking pages, but are there statistics anywhere tracking admins by logged admin actions, and is there a list anywhere of former admins (desysopped for inactivity) who have to go back through RfA because they have now crossed the threshold established by these 3-year and 5-year rules (maybe no-one has yet, but I suspect some former admins will have crossed this threshold), or is this checked on a case-by-case basis by bureaucrats for each re-sysop request? I suspect there may be some former admins who gave up the tools voluntarily, who also fall under these 3-year and 5-year rules, but am not about to try and check that myself. It shouldn't be impossible for someone to extract the data and do the calculations, though. I did try and do a table listing the various combinations of active vs inactive, voluntary desysp vs inactivity desysop, and 3 years editing inactivity and/or 5 years admin inactivity, but it was taking too long. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: the table below may be what you are looking for, resigned admins that are not totally inactive from editing, but whose last admin action is 5+ years ago that we would currently refer to WP:RFA. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Table of resigned admins with no admin actions in 5 years from now
user_name resigned last admin log notes
User:Harro5 20190101 20120329
User:Bdesham 20170206 20100805
User:Pjacobi 20170227 20100130
User:AlexandrDmitri 20141214 20120724
User:Ilmari_Karonen 20150108 20120308
User:J.delanoy 20150109 20131214
User:CBM 20150126 20140215
  • Examples: The list of 78 admins here: Special:PermaLink/884252872 are examples of current admins, that have had 0 logged actions in 5+ years, but have at least one edit in the last 13 months so haven't been removed for inactivity. Under the 5 year rule wording above if they stop being an admin they would need to ask for it back via WP:RFA. This was a fast query, and the actual number may be higher (as this query counted any logged action, not just administrative logged actions). — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. On a practical matter, the notification given to the admins who have their permissions removed due to inactivity may need to be updated to be more specific (or at least link to the relevant section). Currently the wording is 'Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN'. That example is from the talk page of a former admin who is still lurking and left this message. They went inactive around a year ago and may not be following the current discussions and may not be fully aware that there are 3-year (reset to 9 February 2022 by that edit) and 5-year thresholds (22 November 2023) after which they will have to go via RfA rather than this noticeboard (BN), though that is unlikely in this case, I think. Thanks for the two lists. By table, I meant a flow chart of the various possibilities presented as generic outcomes. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The "subject to..." section you referenced above should cover the edge cases - we expect administrators to be able to look at the admin policy. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the 3-year and 5-year limits. Honestly, if I reach that point, I doubt I'd ever be looking for the tools back, either due to being gone for good or just happily editing without them. The limits are pretty prominently posted in the resysopping section of the administrator policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged here, just chiming in that it was not my understanding that the five-year rule applied in the case of voluntary removal. It probably should, but I deliberately aimed low with the proposal because it has been so difficult to make any changes to this policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Not sure where to go from here. I would like to see the inconsistency in how the voluntary removal of tools is handled sorted out, but I am also aware that there are ongoing discussions elsewhere, to which UninvitedCompany has just recently added (in his own words) a wall of text. So what is best to do? To continue here to ask for the situation with regards to the thresholds for re-requesting tools in relation to the voluntary removal of tools (as opposed to removal for total inactivity) to be clarified, or to raise it over there (which may get lost in the noise)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Carcharoth- I think it would be best taken up at WT:Administrators. UC noted his changes in this thread. –xenotalk 13:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I could. But I am disillusioned that despite pointing out that this change was made without consensus, and numerous people saying that the ultimate change made was not what was originally proposed, no-one seems willing to admit to having made a mistake here and reverting until a clearer consensus can be gained. One of the comments in the original RfC stated: "The proposal should also specify whether admins who voluntarily resigned not under a cloud can ask the tools back without an RFA and during which period this could happen. Otherwise, if it passes, it might lead to inconsistencies." It feels like when a mistake is made, that those pointing it out have to do the work, rather than those who made the mistake. It feels like a bureaucrat acting as a super-user to make changes based on their re-interpretation of an RfC, rather than having to do an RfC to ascertain what the actual consensus is. I will leave a note at WT:ADMIN and see if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
We can make an immediate good faith common sense revert of the "voluntary" part. There's no need to wait for reverting something that was added without consensus. Lourdes 10:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, I'm just coming across this discussion now. My goal in the original edit was clarity, not any meaningful change in policy. I am pleased that the policy is finally receiving the attention it deserves, and hope that we can do something with the original text to improve it even if the more substantial changes under discussion at the new RFC are not adopted. I believe that the idiosyncrasies of the policy -- particularly, the separate treatment of resignations from inactive admins; and the way some of the time periods are calculated -- are just artifacts of the way it was drafted and changed by RFCs over the years. If we wish to retain those, I believe we should still make the policy clearer, by breaking out how it affects former admins based on the circumstances of their departure. UninvitedCompany 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There are about 50 admins in Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/resigned who resigned in good standing the remaining resigned in during arbcom cases and other issues which may come in   "controversial circumstances" or are already in long term inactive.Out of this 50 around 15 are eligible to be resysoped currently there are around 35 cannot under the 5 year rule.Now if one is saying there will be no 5 Year rule then anyone who resigned at any time in good standing then a user like Stephen Gilbert who resigned in 2004 can come and ask back for his tools.It was open from 31 December 2017 to 3 March 2018 for a considerable period of time and was posted in WP:CENT and consensus was clearly in favour. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Realistically, I don't expect Stephen to come ask to be admin fifteen years after he resigned, and I don't think he'd be shocked when his request wasn't acted on. The fact that only fifteen users are even eligible makes them a fringe case in of itself. I think bureaucrats could handle those fifteen cases should they arise, which isn't a frequently occurring problem. — Moe Epsilon 15:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would you agree that even if none of them wanted the tools back, it would have been courteous to notify those former admins that this change had removed their right to re-request the tools and that they would have to go to RfA instead? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the answer to that question depends on whether you see adminship as an entitlement given as a reward to favored contributors, or as something granted based on the needs of the project. Historically, we've always acted like it's the former and claimed it's the later. UninvitedCompany 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I was hoping for a more specific answer. You made that change. You said in your edit summary that "The intent is that the actual policy remain unchanged". In fact, your change did change the policy and did change the status of those former admins. Would you, personally, agree or disagree that it would have been courteous to notify those former admins that your change had removed their right to re-request the tools and that they would have to go to RfA instead? This might seem a small deal now, but later changes might affect far more people and cause a lot of ill-feeling if not done more carefully. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Just opining here - but for anyone who wants to wave to no big deal banner - why would there be an issue for someone to run an 'I'm back and ready to help again' RfA - wouldn't you expect the same NBD support there? — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for desysopping (Mushroom)

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.

Dear Bureaucrats, I would kindly like to request my desysopping. I was elected administrator in 2005 and was very active for several years. Then my involvement waxed and waned (also due to my involvement in Wikidata, where I was a sysop as well). In the last few years I have been too busy with work and other projects, so I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a long time. It is sad for me to abandon the adminship, but I have to admit that despite my best intentions I am no longer able to perform my duties as an administrator. Therefore I would like to request my desysopping, effective immediately. Maybe one day I will be back, but that day is not today. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 11:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Mushroom: thank you for the note, in case you haven't been following there is much discussion regarding the post-resignation options for admins that could return in the future. Currently, if you keep editing and return before 2022-12-04 you can ask for reinstatement here, however like most things policies change over time and this option may not be available after a continuing absence. You can always ask for reinstatement at WP:RFA. Hope to still have you around in whatever capacity you have time for! Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Thank you! Good to know I have options. Best wishes, Mushroom (Talk) 13:46, 22 February 2019 (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.

IAdmin request (Evad37)

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.

Per my RfA, I am requesting to be an interface administrator. See my answers to RfA questions 1, 5, and 12's followup, and scripts I've made. Specifically, I am thinking of proposing XFDcloser and Rater as gadgets, once I've sorted out most (or at least more) of the bugs, refactored some of the mess in the code, and perhaps improved the interfaces. I am also still thinking about making code more reusable, i.e. storing libraries of functions as scripts in MediaWiki: namespace – similar in intent to a draft proposal I had, but using existing (or upgraded) MediaWiki functionality. - Evad37 [talk] 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Looks good to me. There's a standard 48 hour hold before we make the change. UninvitedCompany 00:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

😂The best support till now.​ Lourdes 12:09, 20 February 2019 (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.

Request for de-sysoppificationing

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.

It's always been a point of personal pride that I had the opportunity to contribute to such an incredible project as this one, particularly with enough faith from the community that I eventually wielded the mop. But I haven't been able to keep up with my contributions like they once were - life can be like that - so while I might someday try to come back and help out again, it isn't for the foreseeable future. Since I am generally inactive, it makes sense that I have my sysop role removed. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your long service. :) Acalamari 18:06, 22 February 2019 (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.

Resysop request (Espresso Addict)

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

Hello -- I am reporting back for administrative duties, if the bureaucrats consider that I retain the trust of the community. I would plan to patrol main-page errors, help out at DYK, and patrol the speedy categories I'm familiar with. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any issues but there's a standard 24 hour wait before we process these requests. WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine, prior removal was by self request, recent admin activity. Welcome back to mopping. — xaosflux Talk 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2019#March_2019

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2019#March_2019 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

  1. Schneelocke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. Siroxo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
— xaosflux Talk 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting for the record that Special:Log/Siroxo shows Siroxo last logged action as March 2008, which is ~11 years since a logged action, meaning he would not be eligible for resysop under the 5 year rule. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sad to see Sarah on this list. It does upset me when I see someone whom I met in my first weeks on Wikipedia go inactive and/or lose their adminship through inactivity. :'( Sarah was so helpful, so encouraging to me back in the day. She is definitely someone who is behind why I'm still editing today. Acalamari 11:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned RFA?

Not a 'crat matter, page was deleted by admin. — xaosflux Talk 20:04, 1 March 2019 (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.

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SabyaC. --Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Previously asked and answered, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 39#Deletion Question and User talk:SabyaC#RfA. There's naught for bureaucrats to do here anyway, they don't have special authority over the pages at RfA barring closing (and clerking). That page is up to its creator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I went and deleted it for housekeeping reasons. The RfA appeared abandoned as the user did not respond to the talk page message despite being active. If they still want it, it can always be undeleted, or recreated when they are ready.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:29, 1 March 2019 (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.

Spam RfA

It was dealt with at CSD or elsewhere. — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 2 March 2019 (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.

Hello, Due to the nature of it, I am notifying that I have tagged Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Olivettilly for speedy deletion under criteria G3. Thanks, RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:56, 2 March 2019 (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.

Inactive bureaucrat removal

Per the bureaucrats policy the following bureaucrats are being removed under provision 2. This is purely a procedural action as a result of bureaucrat activity tracking. Due to lenghty bureaucratic inactivity, restoration of bureaucrat access will require a new requests for bureaucratship.

With thanks for your many years of service, — xaosflux Talk 00:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed. I join with thanks. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 00:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding my thanks for Kinturtle for long service - part of the first batch of bureaucrats appointed by the community after the user right was created. WJBscribe (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading the timeline correctly this is the first time since 2004 there have been fewer than 20 bureaucrats here. 28bytes (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been a successul RfB since 2016... me and So Why in 2017 broke a streak of successful RfBs that had been uninterrupted since 2012 and nobody has even dare try for RfB since. On one hand I'm sure many would see the lessened need for 'crats to be a good thing overall, but others are obviously concerned about one of the two biggest factors (other than renames being globalized) being the slowing of RfAs and decline of adminship. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The bureaucrat pool is pretty old (in Wikipedia terms, no comment on anyone's biological age!). With the exception of the slightly more sprightly Worm and 28bytes (who became admins in summer of 2011) all bureaucrats, regardless of how recently they passed, RfB have been admins for over 10 years. WJBscribe (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah, we're definitely old in all aspects! :P But yes, I would like to see some newer admins, with newer accounts, become bureaucrats. That most admins and nearly all bureaucrats have held adminship for over a decade is worrying. Acalamari 11:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
But why? I am a Wikidata crat, there are three of us there, I am reasonably active, and I do not even make crat action every month because there are so few of them. Of course the English Wikipedia is way bigger in terms of editors, but was there any point in the last three years (after the renames were taken to Meta) that it was clear we do not have enough crats? Something which was not acted upon swiftly, or some chat there were not enough opinions?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's worried about lacking the necessary number of bureaucrats, more questioning whether we're representative of the current makeup of the community and whether we'd benefit from having newer blood with fresh ideas. By dint of who we are, we probably ingrain some rather old ideas into our approach... WJBscribe (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
But crats are not elected to provide fresh ideas, crats are elected to implement existing policies. In this respect, an active crat who has been around for a long time is the best one, because they have been continuously exposed to policy/practice evolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
RfAs are so brutal, it would take a truly exceptional candidate to want to weather a RfB election these days. Plus, when our current crew of bureaucrats can handle the few activities these days, it doesn't seem like it is worth it to venture an RfB, IMHO. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Right. I figure if more people believed we need more crats, it would be easier to recruit candidates. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
As with admins, I don't really think "we need more" is the right approach. Ideally, all admins should be crats, just like es-wiki does it (and they did not wreck their project either). Imho, cratship should be awarded to any admin after a year of adminship because if they couldn't be trusted, we certainly knew by then (and abuse concerns could be addressed by limiting the number of (de)sysops one crat can perform). Of course, as someone who the community twice rejected for cratship, my opinion might be a little biased. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

More bureaucrats would be welcomed. As would more admins. And more editors. Being more friendly, encouraging people at every step, participation at and pushing back against excessive inflation of standards at RfX are good ways to help with these things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Bogdangiusca

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie, GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 18:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Bogdangiusca
  • For some reason this was processed by a steward. Shouldn't have been needed since the account was already locked, but regardless there is no action we can take now. Reinstatement will require a request by ArbCom. — xaosflux Talk 18:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It is part of the standard process when an account needs to be globally locked due to apparent compromise. Even if the account qualifies for lifting of the global lock, return of admin rights is not automatic and must be authorized by Arbcom. Risker (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I think Xaosflux was asking, given the account was already locked and thus not an immediate concern, why the desysop request wasn't made locally. And I believe his second sentence said roughly what your second sentence said: clarifying for the archives that, given action by the steward, there was nothing for bureaucrats to do in this particular case until prompted by the Committee. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
        • We're both in agreement with the "ArbCom needs to request access restoration" (or I suppose an RfA COULD occur after an unlock) - though I also would never expect stewards to add the access back at all, even with a request from Arbcom - as that is something that would never constitute an emergency and can be handled locally. There is some follow up on the process/timing for local vs stewards handling at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Level_1_desysop_of_Bogdangiusca for anyone concerned. — xaosflux Talk 22:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I personally don't care who dealt with it, as long as it was dealt with. My real concern WHY are we now dealing with Security Incident #4 to happen within the last 365 days? After everything that has happened, why do we still have admin accounts with no 2FA enabled, or at least using a strong unique password? With all of the security notices that have gone out, I consider this to be negligent, and the tools should not be restored until the user in question adopts better security measures.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
            • For reasons explained at length in pretty much every previous discussion about 2FA, not every administrator is able to use 2FA even if they wanted to, and there are concerns about the Foundation's capacity to deal with the volume of issues. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
              Thryduulf, Doesn't excuse not using a uniquely strong password. Ideally one should have both, but at the very least it should not be a reused password as other common sites, that are prone to data breaches. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about Killiondude

Nothing to see here, this matter was resolved last year. — xaosflux Talk 20:23, 12 March 2019 (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.

Section header was Emergency desysop of Killiondude. AGK ■ 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The blanking of Main Page [6] [7] suggests Killiondude's account may have got compromised. Emergency temporary desysop? Note there has already been a very similar issue with this admin. — kashmīrī TALK 19:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh? That was last year... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Emergency? when it happened in November 2018? Is this some Trumpian definition of "emergency"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The diff you linked to are from Nov.2018 and have already resulted in an emergency temporary desysop. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 39#Level 1 desysop of Killiondude. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Bloody me! You're correct. Will delete this request in a moment. — kashmīrī TALK 19:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I have renamed this thread from Emergency desysop of Killiondude to avoid watchlist-induced panicking. AGK ■ 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems this page policy is to archive and not delete. Anyone with a working Archive script thank you to archive this thread. Everyone - sorry for panicking (clicked Main Page history and saw two edits on the very top - assumed they are newest edits to the mainpage). — kashmīrī TALK 20:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
On the plus side, at least now you know that if you really want people's attention on something, you just need to title your thread "Emergency desysop of...", and at least 3 people will reply in under 3 minutes. That's useful to know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2019 (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.

Resysop request for Reaper Eternal

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.

Since I'm now more active following a busy couple years at work (pushing out our software product...), I am requesting to be resysopped. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem; I'm in no big rush. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2019 (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.

New bureaucrat : DeltaQuad

Following the successful closure of Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad, please welcome DeltaQuad to the 'crat club. DQ, if you are fast enough there's a request above that will soon be actionable :D — xaosflux Talk 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! Also, about 1.5 hours on the above item. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I promise not to action it unless it is at least 12 hours overdue! — xaosflux Talk 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, let me know if I screwed up the paperwork at all...I'm sure I missed something. *looks for the thick how to be a crat manual* -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: mostly it is all at WP:CRAT - but for the most part everyone loves clerking for us (especially User:Graham87 - thanks Graham!) and will do most of the "paperwork" right away if you don't. — xaosflux Talk 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: (Non-administrator comment) There is 1 small thing you missed - when you added back Reaper Eternal's sysop bit, you left them with the redundant extended confirmed flag. Xaosflux already took care of that here, but for future reference the standard procedure appears to be removing the extended-confirmed flag. Anyway, congrats! --DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome DeltaQuad! 28bytes (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(And LOL at the mad scramble among the 'crats to close the first successful RfB in years.) 28bytes (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, definitely lol. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the 'crat club DQ. Mostly old fuddy duddies, but I was called spritely recently! ;) WormTT(talk) 09:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC
Yes, Worm That Turned...but by whom?!  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 17:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Another one of those old fuddy-duddies welcoming you to the team. Useight (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Who are you calling old?! Get off my lawn! –xenotalk 15:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, great to have a new face here! Warofdreams talk 14:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! As to our edit-conflicting closers, I give higher marks to Nihonjoe's close, as he remembered to remove the "voice your opinion" link... Sorry Xoasflux ;) WJBscribe (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

<fist pump> Yes! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It will be a great moment of shame forever! But I did shoot first :D — xaosflux Talk 19:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for tools restoration

And I'm fashionably late getting back to this. Permissions restored. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:49, 19 March 2019 (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.

ThaddeusB (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 had my admin rights removed due to inactivity. I believe I should be eligible for resysop since it has been a bit less than 2 years since removal. Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Rights removed May 1 2017. Standard 24 hour hold. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Last admin log 2015-05-20, within the 5 year timeframe as well. — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:49, 19 March 2019 (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.

Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

For the Arbitration Committee; WormTT(talk) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp
Please could a crat implement? I don't generally like doing so myself - conflict of hats. WormTT(talk) 16:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Updated the list of supporting arbs (and fixed a typo). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Compromised account

Resolved
 – Processed following the ArbCom request below. — xaosflux Talk 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Compromised_account. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of status

Hi, I don't intend to use administrator functions going forward. You could remove this flag. Thanks Christopher Parham (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 15:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz Bot

Greetings. Can someone please revoke the bot flag from this account, per the user's request? Dreamy Jazz has retired and requested a self-block for both their main account and bot, which I have actioned, but a Bureaucrat is needed to complete their parting requests.[8] Thanks! ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done per operator request. — xaosflux Talk 21:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

De-Sysopping Request

Resolved

Greetings! I haven’t used my administrator tools in quite a long time, and given my long absence from the community I think it’s best that those privileges be removed. Please remove my administrator flag at your convenience. Thank you for all that you do! Bratsche | talk 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, with thanks for your past service. Do feel free to let me know if there are other user rights you would find useful and I can grant those. –xenotalk 11:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2019#April 2019

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

  1. Kyle Barbour (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. Kzollman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. Madman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
— xaosflux Talk 00:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sad to see Madman fall into shadow, given all the light he has created. With thanks to all three for their service. –xenotalk 02:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno:, I appreciate that. Thanks for the kind words. It's strange not being an admin, even though it's (!) 15 years later and a long time since I worked a lot here. I really did enjoy it. Kyle Barbour 05:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno: Likewise appreciated. I don't think I did that much during my tenure, but time has probably made the memories fade. Do you mind removing the bot flag from MadmanBot so I can officially retire him too? Cheers, — madman 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Madman:  Done — xaosflux Talk 01:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey @Xaosflux: — thanks for handling this. I got the email a while ago and meant to voluntarily let go of the mop and just forgot. Thanks for managing it and sorry for the extra work, I meant to deal with it myself and hope it wasn't too much of a bother. Kyle Barbour 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kyle Barbour: no worries for sure! And of course 'edit' and 'create article' are only ever one click away for you if you want to get back in to the swing of things! — xaosflux Talk 11:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New crat chat

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat. Maxim(talk) 18:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: perhaps dropping a MMS to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list would be useful as well? — xaosflux Talk 21:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. It's the first time I've used MMS; it took me longer to figure out than I would have liked to. :p Maxim(talk) 22:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Role of bureaucrats in the community

Glancing over the most recent RfB, there's some discussion regarding the role of bureaucrats in the community, including but not limited to using IAR for bureaucrat actions. I've always felt there is a bizarre dichotomy of picking admins with particularly good judgment but relegating to fairly automated button pushing. I think it would be useful to have a discussion on the expectations of the community with regards to the role of bureaucrats.

My thoughts are summarized as follows. The recent arb case involving bureaucratic actions ended in requests from several arbs on the Proposed Decision page to not do what I did again. There were two first choice and one second choice vote for admonishing me, one vote to de-crat me, and one thank you. The circumstances of that case are largely moot now (no self-unblocks anymore). Regardless, I would argue there does remain room for bureaucratic judgment/discretion. At any rate, the rumours of my shaming are somewhat exaggerated. :p

I'm pinging @Xaosflux, Ritchie333, and Cyberpower678 as from looking over the RfB, they commented in particular on the recent arb case. Maxim(talk) 22:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest having the discussion over at the Village pump (not sure which sub-board) as that will attract a wider participation from the community. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Or at least linking in to this. — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do that. Village pump discussions are too hard to follow unless you stay sitting there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe move it over to Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. –xenotalk 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that if we 'crats invoke IAR to do something, it needs to be clearly (though perhaps not immediately evident to an outside observer) in support of a community need to maintain or improve the project. As an example I used IAR last year related to granting temporary IAdmin access to maintainers in the absence of a community mandate authorizing it and it was more glowsticks-and-sporks than torches-and-pitchforks from the villagers. — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The arb case in question was as a result of virtually everyone involved acting with a miscalibrated "sense of urgency" meter. If instead of clicking the "revert", "block", "(self) unblock", and "desysop" buttons each editor had instead put the keyboard down and eaten nachos and watched TV for an hour or three, there would not have been an arb case. So I'm not sure we want to make policy or even gauge community feeling on IAR actions based on that particular episode. I think people will give a lot of slack to IAR actions based on actual emergencies rather than perceived ones. 28bytes (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • +1 to that. That was an extremely rare set of circumstances, that as it happens is now impossible. A broad discussion of the role of 'crats in this era of WP is probably a discussion worth having, but I don't thin it should focus ont hat particualr incident or it's real or imagined after effects. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It's possible that for everyone who jumped in, there were a dozen people eating nachos. But obviously it's the one person who acts fastest (or most severely) that determines the actual response. It's a bias that seems to affect a lot of admin areas. I wish there were a pithy "X effect" name for it. – Joe (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. That case involved the application of IAR to perform an emergency desysop where (no offence, Maxim) there wasn't really an emergency. Thereafter two questions got somewhat conflated, namely: (i) whether bureaucrats may ever invoke IAR to desysop in an emergency and (ii) whether, if they can, it had been an appropriate instance to do it. Question (i) remains undetermined. Indeed, there is a bit of a catch-22 here. If there was a community consensus allowing a unilateral emergency desysop by a bureaucrat, there would be no need to invoke IAR. Likewise, a rule that bureaucrats may never rely upon IAR would presumably also be subject to IAR... WJBscribe (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
      And that is not the only Catch-22, it becomes perversely a bureaucrat ignoring the emergency rules we have because someone else has ignored some other rules - rule ignoring good for me, but not for thee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I also agree with this. I don't want to comment too much as mixing my old hat with my new hat, but I want to echo @Beeblebrox and WJBscribe: in their comments. Can someone tell me where the nachos refills are? My bowl is empty and someone forgot to restock the 'crat cupboard. :/ -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, a lot depends on the history of the 'crat in question and the assumption of good faith. DeSysopping is very easy to correct (the switches move in both directions, you know). In theory, I would lean to supporting someone who has years of good wikiservice and good judgement, who made the call that it was an emergency, acted in that fashion and then brought everything to the proper venues. As WJBscribe said, a situation where consensus is clear is almost certainly not an emergency. Remember, different people will interpret the same situation differently, and neither is necessarily wrong. Emergencies require after-action reports because people have to interpret and react under time pressure. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That seems like an argument for ad hoc personal privilege. It's perhaps one thing when the community has no process, so that some one person thinks they have to aggregate power to themselves, it's another when the community processes have been articulated. When the 'when' of when things are done and by whom has already been written, than follow it, or get it re-written. It is precisely because one person's view is not other's views that we go through the effort to write policy and process down to mediate those differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a premise asserted in RfB standard question 3, "Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community." Where did that come from? It is pretty good. "The ability to engage others in the community" is ideal. I think bureaucrats err on the side of being cautious, but of course that is the side to err on. My reading of the Maxim ArbCom case is that he deserved the "thank you", and I raised my eyebrows at the notion that 3 hours is evidence that something is not an emergency. Bureaucrats are at the top of the hierarchy of formal recognition of an understanding of consensus. If ever there is an IAR rationale for anything, I expect a bureaucrat is best qualified to do it. A good IAR action is proven by consensus support afterwards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    The context was important too. Its notable that this was a fight over an internal Wikipedia page with no indication that anyone was going to go disrupt anything important. (That and the fact that the arbs themselves declined a level 1, which would seem to be the most evident standard for an out of process revocation). In any case, what's the point of this discussion? It has already been established (by that case) that the 'crats can do what they will (in an IAR sense) without fear of reprisal. The policy has been de-facto amended (by the only body that has authority to enact this particular aspect of community consensus). Crazynas t 21:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My view is that before self-unblocks were disabled, it would have been well within the spirit of WP:IAR for a bureaucrat to unilaterally desysop an administrator account that is clearly compromised. An unfortunately common example is an account vandalizing the Main Page. Before we removed the ability to self-unblock, it was critical that, once discovered, a compromised account be desysopped immediately, since blocks would be useless and compromised admins can wreak havoc over millions of pages in the space of a few seconds (the Main Page is a naive target for vandals, templates are the really potent stuff). For this reason, I was quite surprised to discover the no consensus result at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy (2011), and if self-unblocks weren't now disabled, I would have strongly considered starting a new RfC to revisit the issue.
    This is all moot because nowadays any one administrator can stop a compromised administrator account via a block. In response to the broader question of whether bureaucrats can invoke WP:IAR with respect to bureaucrat actions, I would say the answer is clearly "yes, they can". The relevant question to consider is "would applying the rule seriously harm the encyclopedia, and would ignoring the rule prevent that from happening?" – I trust that bureaucrats have the judgment needed to answer this question. Mz7 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Can a blocked admin account view deleted edits? A globally locked account cannot (because you can't log in to the account at all) but I don't know if disabling self-unblocks has addressed that particular issue with a local block. WJBscribe (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    @WJBscribe: yes a blocked admin can still use (deletedtext) and a number of other permissions that I'm not going to spell out here. Notable they can NOT use: block (except for a retaliatory block on the admin that blocked them), protect, userrights, delete; and those are generally the biggest impacting things. — xaosflux Talk 15:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, my vote to de-crat was largely because the standards to become a bureaucrat are so high that I think the standards to remove have to be correspondingly low. In other words, it's a very small fall to below the level of the community's trust when the threshold to pass an RfB without a crat chat requires more than five supports for every one oppose. Since ArbCom had no precedent on what the threshold should be for de-crat, I made an argument for a fairly low threshold. I would not vote to de-crat in similar future circumstances, most likely, since a precedent has now more-or-less been set that de-crat should have the same threshold as desysop.

    To the substance of the question, the community has proscribed bureaucrats a very narrow role and declined to expand it at various RfCs throughout the years, such as the one I referenced in my voting at that case. That included explicitly declining to allow crats to perform emergency desysops without an ArbCom motion. I think that decision is weird – why would you not want a crat to act in a genuine emergency, such as a compromised account? – but it is what it is. If the community didn't even approve unilaterally desysopping compromised accounts as an emergency, then it seems clear they never intended IAR desysops to be a thing. ~ Rob13Talk 14:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

    FWIW I think there would have been much less of a backlash from the community if Maxim had 'pushed the button' on a compromised account that was vandalizing the main page before the Arbs had had a chance to post a formal Level 1 request here. That's a straightforward application of WP:BURO not so much a cowboy IAR. Crazynas t 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Aggregating "emergency" power to a single person is a bad idea, nor is it necessary, this is Wikipedia, not life and death. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    How much chaos is "emergency" desysoping someone going to cause? It's not a permanent thing, and it affects one user. It's not like they have a big red "shut down Wikipedia" button. Natureium (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    See also Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales#Arbitration_Committee ... — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, less and less aggregation to that individual to where it's almost non-existent on paper, at least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maxim stepped into a situation where processes were working, just not fast enough for Maxim's ipsa dixit liking, and turned it into a months long thing, so long it's being discussed even now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think we need to make any assumptions about why Maxim acted beyond assuming that he acted in good faith. Hindsight is 20/20. That said, I do agree that the case in question shouldn't reflect more broadly on how the community views IAR relating to bureaucrat actions. I personally think that the community gives quite a bit of latitude to bureaucrats when deciding who gets sysop rights (crat chats, discretionary zones, etc), but the removal of sysop rights is a bit different since the decision-making body for removal is not the community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    What? Maxim stated that Arbcom was unable to act expeditiously enough for Maxim (it being Sunday), that is not only good faith assumption, that's fact. As for the rest, why do you think the job-title given by the community is blatantly, bureaucrat? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe I read into your statement too much. It sounded like you were assuming that he knew the process was working, when his justification seemed to be that the process would not have been able to work in time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Either way -- 'I know there is a process, and it's not good enough', or 'I don't know there is a process, and that's not good enough' -- it's an aggregation of power to the individual to act, except the later suggests the individual should have worked to be informed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps paradoxically I've always believed IAR is more important when there are less rules to ignore. When WP had comparatively few rules compared to today, and those rules were drafted by a smaller group of editors and changed relatively easily without much review, then there were many circumstances in which a rule didn't work or didn't cover the situation at hand. As the rule base has grown, the drafting has improved and the review process has become of very high quality, there is much less grey space in which IAR is needed. There will always be some situations where a different approach is required, so crats should retain the ability to apply their discretion, but it's a diminishing requirement IMO and it feels unnecessary to give significant weight to it during RFBs. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Beyond IAR and the specific incident in question, I think Maxim's bizarre dichotomy is, much like with sysop vs. admin, partially down to the fact that we're stuck with the word bureaucrat. The [y]ou are technically correct... the best kind of correct compliment of Hermes Conrad has been used ad nauseam, but even just the word bureaucrat can convey that sense of fairly automated button pushing. Ideally, while bureaucrats may be expected to only act in specific situations, that isn't the same as behaving robotically (or bureaucratically); that is, the bureaucratic part of the job is when to act, not how to act. A big part of how we view people is how we talk (and joke) about them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Amorymeltzer: I don't see any reason why the community couldn't come to a consensus to rename the Bureaucrat user group. The Spanish Wikipedia calls its equivalent of administrators "Bibliotecarios", which translates literally as "Librarians", for example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Trustees"? Leviv ich 23:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Nah, "trustees" has a specific meaning within the WMF; they are the members of the Board of Trustees. I was inclined to go with "enablers", but that might be misconstrued. Risker (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Old folks' home? Natureium (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Primefac

Following his successful RfB, please welcome @Primefac: to the 'crat crew. Primefac, always feel free to post any questions or open discussions here about anything relevant. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 18:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
​ yeah, we are always happy to help —usernamekiran(talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome aboard. -- Avi (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp

Friendly Request

Hi - now that you've sorted out RexxSit, can you solve Brexit please? That must be a piece of cake after trying to resolve an RFA like that . Seriously, although I opposed, I've read through your discussion, and can't fault the conclusion you came to. I think you all need a !vote of thanks for your hard work. I've bookedmarked the crat chat page, just to remind me never to run for RFB myself! — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd start a chat about making the UK a colony of the US; that should solve everything, right? . -- Avi (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Damn, has it come to that now? And it used to be the other way round as we thought it was the US that couldn't sort out its governance... [9]  — Amakuru (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The UK's future was predicted in 1949. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat

Resolved
 – The case was declined (Special:PermanentLink/892308310#RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat).

Kindly note a recently filed arbitration case request (Special:PermanentLink/891981728). –xenotalk 12:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see the concern; in the previous crat chat, civility/conduct/temperament was also the primary concern, but ~70% support wasn't enough for the bureaucrats participating in that discussion. It seems like the rationales used by bureaucrats in their discussions are completely arbitrary. I'm not particularly concerned that RexxS was promoted; I'm sure he will be able to press the buttons correctly, despite the civility concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a Good Thing™ that no RfA ever influences its successors—or should. Each on their merits and every argument stands alone. ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree, you cannot compare any one RfA to another, or two different bureaucrat chats, for that matter. Completely different set of circumstances and just saying "well, this one at 64.1% didn't go to a chat" or "this bureaucrat chat at 70% didn't result in promotion" are comparing apples and oranges almost all of the time. –xenotalk 17:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The arbitration request is a bureaucratic version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with Ajraddatz that it doesn't help when decisions appear to be arbitrary but that's life. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The difference between the last crat chat and this one was that we had two new crats who are significantly more active and thus familiar with community norms taking part in it. Ajraddatz knows (or at the very least, he and I have discussed it before), that I think we should make RfA a hard vote with 70% as the cutoff, get rid of crats, and let stewards flip the bit. I think that would be more fair to everyone and would get us away from the “not a vote, but it really is, except when we decide it isn’t” situation that RfA appears to be.
At the same time, my view on this is a minority view: the en.wiki community has consistently voiced the view that RfA should be a discussion. So long as that is the case, crats decide what consensus is, and making sure that we have crats who are active in the community in addition to the old hands is important. While I’d prefer that we just go ahead and make RfA an actual vote, this is how the community wanted it to work, and you can’t fault crats for doing their “job”. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Also different participants for that matter. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, and this is clearly mentioned in the crats' rationales, the main difference between Jbhunley and RexxS was not the personnel, but that there were two separate valid Oppose concerns in the former (civility and lack of content) but just one in the latter, once the crats decided to discount opposition based on the RFA being badly timed or jokey . For better or for worse, number of separate issues plays a big part in crat chats. I think that's OK. Having a straight pass/fail percentage, particularly one set at 75%, would not be a good idea IMHO. Giving that much power to simple headcount would leave it open to socking, canvassing, meating, and all the usual reasons why we don't build consensus by vote.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Admitting that I am on the other side of the decision which I think was wrong, I would just add this - which applies regardless. The actual written up statement of at least 4 of the 'crats decisions are actually just really badly written waffle. If a little more time had been spent on actually forming a complete, articulate and short written opinion rather than rather rambling excitable prose, maybe the decisions would be clearer and less disputed. It seems ironic that the brief, clearly stated "no consensus" opinions stand out in comparison to opaque, wavering, "cover every angle" consensus opinions. Regardless, there are some very highly critical and well made points at the Arbcom case which hopefully will inform 'crats that a notable segment of the community does not think that you have collectively done the right thing here. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And I could just as easily say that in Jbhunley's case there was just one major instance of incivility, whereas here it was more long-term and thus a bigger concern. Closing discussions based on the opinion of the closer works in other places where the closer needs to balance consensus against established policy; i.e. requests for deletion. There are also some good reasons for crats to discount votes - revenge votes, votes based on one single issue years ago, and even concerns with process rather than candidate. The first two did not happen happened here, and the third only counted for a few votes. Crats discounted some votes to bring the request into the discretionary zone, and then ignored more to close the request as successful. And what this really demonstrates is the wildly different behavioural expectations for new vs established users, both in terms of the context of the nomination, and the crats seemingly ignoring legitimate concerns about civility with justifications like "the supports cancel out the opposes". -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

65%-75% - 60%?

ArbCom has declined the case request and there are multiple RfCs ongoing at WT:RFA. Continuing to beat this dead horse here isn’t productive and also isn’t what this noticeboard is for. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2019 (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.

'Crats: The community has provided unambiguous confirmation that you are correct to exercise additional discretion in marginal cases under and above the RFC in 2015 cited here [10]. Until the community changes it's mind (highly improbable) can you consider and clarify (preferably as a group) how you will conduct closes which are in the range 60% to 75% which was rejected at the same time that 65%-75% was approved? [11] Would you 'crat chat at 59%, 60% or 61%? This is a serious question, for the avoidance of doubt and the prevention of future drama. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Stick. Drop. Nick (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I think (extrapolating) the answer would be "on a case by case basis". Any answer to this question would not avoid drama should a cratchat be held at 58%. This is a fishing exercise with no satisfactory outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I actually agree with this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
See my response at Special:PermaLink/892218171#Order_of_operations regarding "percentages". — xaosflux Talk 20:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
We should worry less about specific numbers and worry more about the complete disregard that some of the bureaucrats had for people's opinions that didn't coincide with their own. Talking about meaningless numbers distracts from the real issue the most recent 'crat chat brought to light. Nihlus 01:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nihlus: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But when that opinion is of low quality, you are not entitled to demand that people pretend it is high-quality and to demand it be given the same weight as a well-informed and well-articulated opinion. Let me give you some examples of what most bureaucrats would consider to be a low-quality opinion, which I've seen in multiple RfAs over the years.
  1. Confusing the candidate with an entirely different editor and opposing on the basis of the unrelated editor's faults.
  2. Opposing on the basis of the candidate not having any audited content when the candidate did in fact have plenty of audited content and the opposer either was confused or didn't check.
  3. Opposing with a boilerplate "too many admins currently" statement copied and pasted from past RfAs.
  4. Opposing with no explanation whatsoever.
Your initial oppose in the recent RfA was low-quality: "Oppose as a waste of the community's time." Most bureaucrats would assign it little weight because it was content-free hostility with no explanation about what concerns, if any, you had about the candidate. To your credit, it appears you realized that this was a low-quality oppose, and later supplemented it with a more detailed explanation about your concerns about the candidate. I do not know how the closing bureaucrats weighed your revised oppose specifically, but I am confident that they gave it more weight than they would have given your initial comment.
Are supports ever given less weight because they are low-quality? Yes, they are, although it is true that traditionally opposes are held to a higher standard since each oppose affects an RfA's chance of success more heavily than a single support.
Regarding percentages, bureaucrats do take seriously the expectation that RfAs with support percentages below the discretionary range will generally fail and RfAs with support percentages above the discretionary range will generally succeed. But ultimately our responsibility it to accurately assess consensus, and weighing arguments is a critical part of that. Should there ever be an RfA in which all of the opposes are the type of low-quality comments like those described above, don't be surprised to see a 'crat assign those opposes little to no value and close that RfA as successful even if the support/oppose percentage is way outside the discretionary range.
Will the bureaucrats always give each argument the exact weight you would? Probably not. Do other bureaucrats weigh arguments the exact same way I do? Nope. I realize it's not fun to be told that your opinion was not given the same or greater weight than someone you disagree with, but it's not personal, and it's not a conspiracy; it's simply how the process works, for better or worse. You're welcome to propose changes to the way consensus is assessed, but I'm sure you recognize that "never discount my opinion" in a non-starter within the consensus framework under which Wikipedia operates. 28bytes (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
My all time winner remains "username is not sufficiently fear-inspiring" ‑ Iridescent 13:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
28bytes, But when that opinion is of low quality, you are not entitled to demand that people pretend it is high-quality and to demand it be given the same weight as a well-informed and well-articulated opinion. It's funny that I could say the same thing about the opinions put forward by some of the bureaucrats. There's a difference between discounting specific votes for valid reasons and discounting votes that make a point you happen to disagree with. Bureaucrats are not in a position to judge consensus based on how they personally view the candidate but that's exactly what some did. Some even had the gall to say that the supporters who countered the points made by the opposers somehow held more weight (this is based on the 'crat's opinion) or canceled them out but then failed to discount the supporters who didn't address those same points made by the opposers. Let's look at the some of the supports:
  • A likely net positive
  • Seems good enough for me
  • Real support a serious moment on a silly day.
  • Looks like a good candidate.
  • Multiple supports with zero rationale provided
To what extent are those discounted? Look, I am not even upset with the result as one must get used to not getting their way on the wiki, but I find this unbalanced approach to these types of issues rather worrisome. It's a blight on the tenures of some of the bureaucrats, including our two newest ones. Nihlus 18:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll just repost here what I posted several hours ago at WT:RfA:
*The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted upon, a minimum quorum, or laying down some strict formula for consistency, or a firm numerical cut-off.
Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually far more drama surrounding the Hunley RfA than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have conferred on them the responsibility of adjudicating on close calls.
Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins. Biblioworm's reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the real problems with RfA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (e/c)Theoretically weighing will occur. Having read multiple chats, though, it seems much more like a vote, with the Crat voters stating their opinions over against other's opinions. Who knows what would happen if you get something like 6-5 or 9-7. Nonetheless, I think, there are some rather traditional measures in wikipedia-group consensus making that would be beneficial. Say you have turnout of 4 crats, three of whom have the same conclusion: one thinks it right to blast these !votes, and another who does not think those are the problem, but thinks it right to blast another set, and the third who thinks the first two are wrong in their blasting, but agrees with the conclusion, and the forth who disagrees with the conclusion. Why not have the three try to get together where they iron out their differences, to produce a single statement, and the forth can state their disagreement, if they are still unpersuaded. That looks like real consensus making, increases persuasiveness, and also leaves much less room for the after-action -- what was really important here? -- by others, through reading multiple tea leaves. (Also, on the issue of basically or close to 0-weight, cannot a majority of crats determine and say explicitly that those are 0 weight - which is educational for the community - and may improve future RfA's). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My recent comment at WT:RFA is relevant to this thread (at least, I think so). I would like to offer a sincere apology to any one-legged 'crats, any 'crats incapable of or emotionally devastated by the notion of a shaved leg for whatever gender orientation that 'crat expresses, and to any 'crats with vampire computers that give no reflection. My comments are not intended to offend in any of these circumstances. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being seen as facetious—which is absolutely not my intent—in response to the original question which was asked as a serious question in good faith, one would have to consider a crude probability density function that describes the likelihood of a crat chat. It would be the best mathematical model to describe the occurrence of a crat chat as opposed to a hard numerical cutoff, because RfA is treated as much as a discussion as it is treated as a vote.
Practically, the probability of a chat above a closing percentage of 80% is effectively zero. Between 75% and 80%—also pretty much zero but perhaps slightly greater than 0%. The probability below 50% also is more or less zero too. Between 50% and 75% it would be a skewed distribution perhaps peaking at 70% with a sharper dropoff towards 75% and a smoother dropoff towards 65%, more dropoff towards 60%, and really dropping going towards 50%? In other words, it's likelier to have a crat chat between 65% and 70% compared to 70% to 75%. Whereas 60%–65% is possible but less common, and 50%–60% is actually quite unprecedented thus improbable (in a similar way to a 75%–80% chat.
We know the frequency of crat chats is not normally distributed, as I think it it's likelier to have a crat chat at a lower % than at a higher % relative to the mean. For the sake of argument, let's pretend crat chats follows a normal distribution. If we set the mean as 70% and the standard deviation as 3.75%, it would mean that 95% of crat chats occur between 62.5% and 77.5% (OK), and 99.7% of crat chats occur between 58.75% and 81.25% (slightly stretching reality but also overall OK).
To round out the response, it's unlikely that we would have a crat chat at 59%, 60%, or 61%. The overwhelming majority of RfAs at that percentage are no-consensus. But it doesn't mean that we would never have a crat chat at 59%, 60%, 61%. Maxim(talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (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.

Unflag bot

Officially retired almost 2 years ago after clearing almost all empty categories, never got around to request removing the bit. I do not think I will be putting it to use in the future either. With thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Maxim(talk) 18:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

sysop for JJMC89 bot III

Please grant the sysop bit to JJMC89 bot III (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · botop (e · t · c) · contribs · user rights). Maxim already granted the bot bit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done and I also fucked up the log summary. Is there anything else I can mess up for you? :p Maxim(talk) 23:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maxim — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
For our archives, this is per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot III. — xaosflux Talk 00:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove bot flag

Please remove the flag from my bot which has not run for a long time. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

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.

Moved to WP:AN/I § Admin Abuse

I have no idea if I'm in the correct place to report Admin Abuse. I tried to follow the instructions for reporting, but I got so confused I don't know what's up or down. I hope I'm in the correct place. If not, I apologize.

Since I am a mere layman (computer idiot) I have tried to add an article about an influential person. Instead of receiving help (except for one nice Admin who said: "Hello and thank you for participating in Wikipedia. It looks like you got a pretty rough welcome! The standard mantra is Don't bite the newbies but that's theory and not always practice") ... I have been called names, been belittled for not "knowing what I was doing" formatting, etc and have been told outright to "deal with it".

I have been nothing but kind and courteous to ALL admins and have posed sincere questions on receiving some kind of help. I have sat on recreating this article for 10 years as being humiliated doesn't strike my fancy. Again, I know nothing about how to professionally create on Wikipedia. I don't understand all the {{ and [[ and :: and )) et al.

Why is it so difficult for a layman to post an create/edit/update an article? The only "training" I have is TYPE and hit ENTER.

If someone...anyone could help me without the holier than thou attitude and name calling, I would be SO appreciative.

I'm going to try once again to create the page for Finney Ross Master Leathersmith for the Rodeo Cowboy Associate for 40 years. (Precursor to the PRCA) Master Knife Maker

Thank you very much, Todd Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagedirtbiker (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Vintagedirtbiker, the correct venue to raise concerns about an admin would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for the assistance Primefac !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagedirtbiker (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 April 2019 (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.

Inactive admins for May 2019

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 10:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Graham87: Shouldn't this be labeled May 2019? March 2019's was on March 1, and the other April 2019's was on april 1 --DannyS712 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Ooooooops, yes it should! I've fixed it. Graham87 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks to all for their service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: please inform these users of your removals. You can use the template at Template:Inactive admin. — xaosflux Talk 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, done that also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Resignation request for deadminship

Please remove my administrator rights. I haven't had time or need for tool use in forever, and that doesn't seem likely to ever change. Consumed Crustacean (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Cheers! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your past service. 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank Amanda (and any other crats who I might have missed) for her clerking at the current RfA. As recent events have shown, RfA is an important responsibility for the bureaucrats team and having crats rather than sysops or even editors (as had recently happened) be the ones to clerk feels like it is in keeping with this group's role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely and I’m glad that DeltaQuad is being proactive in this area.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, it is something that has been needed for a long time, and 'crats in my two cents should be administering it. If we want to change some of the level of toxicity of RfA, then this proactive enforcement is needed by the 'crat team. Whenever there is an RfA, I try to keep tabs on it as much as I can with life, so I'm at least aware of what is going on. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly, both with you and with the giving of thanks. I think a quick hand is called for, if only because others may take action in the absence of 'crats. It's unfortunate, but clerking has been done by editors, sysop or otherwise, which is not ideal to say the least. Any port in a storm, sure, but it's shaky ground. It's nice to have 'crat hands. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree as well. Proactive clerking has long been desperately needed at RfA, and while any user can technically do this, most avoid it to avoid getting embroiled in the toxicity of RfA. Thus, it naturally falls to the 'crats, who hold the only position of authority at RfA to speak of. It is a travesty that the crats have traditionally neglected this role, and I hope that the fresh blood can continue to bring some much needed change. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea, and something I'll make an effort to keep an eye on in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely welcome to have more of this. Now, if only we had more RFAs, too... GABgab 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, throughout all the investigations and analyses of what's wrong with RfA, none of the suggestions for clerking met even with sufficient consensus of the work groups to start a formal RfC on the subject of clerking. Moreover, significant opposition was raised by other users who claim that clerking is not explicitly within the mandate of Bureaucratship. Exacerbated by the long time it takes for closures to RfA or getting a 'crat chat together when required, this seems to demonstrate that not many Bureaucrats are as active as they once were. I welcome the rare and recent promotions to Bureaucrat in the anticipation that this may now change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the clerking is a good idea in theory but I'll put on my cynic hat. If we collectively as bureaucrats start clerking/policing RfA more, it would be make it more difficult for us to also be dispassionate RfA closers. Bluntly speaking, we'd be "clerking" the oppose section more than anywhere else, and when it would come to a borderline RfA with or without a crat chat, there would at least be a perception of impropriety. I'm not sure we have enough crats where you'd have a couple "clerking" to leave enough for a chat if that was needed. In terms of active crats, I do closely follow RfAs (I guess RfBs too on those rare occasions) despite not actually making edits for weeks at a time. I'll review them quite frequently, especially during the first couple of days. Maybe there are other lurker-crats too. Maxim(talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Broadly agree- Every RfX goes on my watchlist; I follow them closely even while not making edits; I try to avoid most participation, though do clerk where necessary and not already handled by another community member. (Also Kudpung- long time for RfA closure?! I think you’ll find most RfAs are closed the minute they expire or slightly before - though I am always happy to have fresh blood on the team, carne por la machina). –xenotalk 14:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed

An arbitration case regarding Enigmaman has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed
 Done and notified, thanks again for their service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I updated the details at WP:Former administrators. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussions concerning bureaucrats and dealing with compromised administrator accounts

There are multiple discussions ongoing at WT:ACN and WT:ADMIN concerning the role of bureaucrats with respect to resysoping individuals whose administrator account was compromised. Maxim(talk) 13:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussions at WT:ACN concerning administrator account security and restoration following compromise

There are ongoing discussions of interest at WT:ACN concerning administrator account security and restoration following compromise, bureaucrat comment has been invited. –xenotalk 13:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: which section should we keep? :D Maxim(talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Damn! Well I started typing it an hour ago or something :p –xenotalk 13:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Redundant section is redundant. ;) —DoRD (talk)​ 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In a nutshell, is anything actually changing as far as our actual current practice? My current read is that if your access is removed by an arbcom motion it is creating "a cloud" and we won't give it back without an arbcom motion/ruling (which removes the cloud) or a new RfA. - which is really the status quo. — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, nothing should be different on your end; only change was ArbCom saying that they might not automotion regranting of perms to previously-compromised sysops. Not that that diminishes any value in the discussion concerning bureaucrats; you've all certainly been mentioned, if by policy rather than name. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think the major point of contention is that the committee does not really have the authority to grant administrative permissions- the final job to decide when/if to resysop really lies with bureaucrats. The committee should instead be recommending the permissions be restored (following their investigation of the breach and receiving satisfactory assurances, etc.), or, in the case of gross negligence of account security practices, passing an explicit motion permanently revoking the administrative privileges of the user involved (which would be binding on bureaucrats and look less like a backdoor desysyop). [x-post from WT:ADMIN] –xenotalk 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess the more relevant question is, should we authorize bureaucrats to remove the permissions of obviously compromised admin accounts, and then return them when informed that the owner has re-secured the account? I'll note in passing that Arbcom depends largely on the information provided by stewards and WMF Trust & Safety; checkuser isn't usually all that helpful in confirming this information. Frankly, it looks like (just from a workload perspective), this should be a no-brainer; 'crats have time, they're usually reachable, can act immediately as individuals, and arbcom needs to dig up a minimum of three people to make their desysop motion. Plus...at least in the current policy, you already seem to have the authority to do so. Risker (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    I believe pulling the rights in a compromised account situations remains in the province of IAR, no? A precious RFC and the recent RFAR speak to it. –xenotalk 23:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    WMF Trust and Safety (and stewards as first responders) are the two groups with the technical access required to fully stop abuse from compromised accounts and return the accounts to their owners. There is no reason why local bureaucrats or ArbCom should be involved here at all. If an account needs to be desysopped before access is returned, then it could be done by a steward or a request to local bureaucrats depending on the situation. I think you could do away with the practice of desysopping compromised accounts that are already locked entirely and see no negative impacts. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    My reading of the general current local state is that: If you let your account get compromised, you shouldn't have advanced access here anymore until we are satisfied that you won't get compromised again. This assumes that compromises are caused by lack of due care of an account holder. While the lock/unlock process stops damage and presumably ensures the right person is in control of the credential for an account, it doesn't directly address the continuing care concern. — xaosflux Talk 19:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    The first thing that a steward or WMF T&S person does when unlocking a compromised account is asking them to change their password to something more secure. We also have ways to check if they have done this. That should fill the ongoing security requirement of the policy much better than a bureaucrat or ArbCom asking the user to take steps without any way to confirm what has happened. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    A re-breach is not going to happen, for all practical purposes. And, for all other cases of admin-conduct brought before the committee, the mop stays with with them, until the festival ends. ∯WBGconverse 19:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Those activities only reflect the instantaneous actions of the compromised individual, and are expected to ensure that the correct account holder is in control and will be less likely to have another immediate loss. It does not provide additional information our community has stated is important such as: determining if the loss was due to carelessness of the account holder, or determining if the account holder is committed to exercising due care in the future. As continuous care is expected of advanced rights holders, continuing community support for advanced permissions may no longer be present in such situations. — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    If that is a concern, then there is value to asking them. But that hasn't been the case for any of the compromised accounts, suggesting that maybe a follow up process rather than desysopping any impacted accounts would be a more sensible policy. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Role of 'crats in 2FA

A major problem with 2FA as presently implemented is that there is no mechanism in place for resetting 2FA in the event a user is locked out. At present the proces is to open a ticket on phabricator and try to convince a developer that the request is both legitimate and worthy of attention.

2FA lockouts can occur fairly easily and are common over a time horizon of years with a user base numbering in the thousands.

The main problem in dealing with reset requests is confirming the legitimacy of the request. While we do not have a policy at the present time, we should be able to create one combining elements of:

  1. The passage of time, so that the legitimate operator of an account has the opportunity to log in and reject the request
  2. Comparing the requestor's identity to previous public statements by the account.
  3. Comparison of the requestor's appearance to photos from meetups or other similar events
  4. Confirmation that the email address associated with the account is under the requestor's control

This is a process that requires judgment that is best performed by someone answerable to the ENWP community. I believe that the 'crats are in the best position to perform these tasks.

I believe the best process to achieve this would be to build consensus locally and then involve WMF trust and safety. I would imagine that we would be forwarding approved reset requests for 2FA reset to developers (perhaps via phabricator) until there is sufficient volume to warrant an automated interface.

I believe that having a well-defined, fair process for 2FA resets will speed the adoption of 2FA and improve security. Even if the exisitng 2FA system is replaced with something better, the need for a process for handling reset requests will be ongoing.

I'm starting here and if there is sufficient support can open an RfC or otherwise get this in front of a wider audience.

UninvitedCompany 22:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If I'm remembering correctly, I believe there were talks of Stewards being a potential bridge between a community and whatever method of removing 2FA is/will be available. Given 2FA is applied globally (i.e. applies to logging in via CentralAuth - it isn't project-specific once enabled), should this not be handled centrally? Just my 2 cents - TNT 💖 22:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It came up at the last steward call, and it's still being worked on. Agreed that this is a global issue and should fall to stewards rather than local bureaucrats, especially given the nature of sensitive information required to make an informed judgement to remove 2FA. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
With "accounts" being global, this isn't something that any local project would deal with. So staff, stewards, or some other special-build global group would be the best way to deal with credential resets. — xaosflux Talk 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of problems with the base assumptions of the original post. First, there are only two ways to log into Phabricator: if one has a developer account (a tiny subset of people who post on Wikimedia sites), one can use that LDAP sign-in. The other way is to be logged into your Wikimedia SUL account; however, if your account is globally locked, you cannot log in, and you therefore cannot log into Phabricator, nor can you make posts there. Secondly, there is a diminishingly small likelihood that (a) a Wikimedian who has never posted to Phabricator will understand how to do so; (b) in the case where the person was successful, that it will be noticed and/or managed in a prompt and timely way and (c) that they'll encounter anyone who knows them well enough to vouch for them, know what to do about the situation, or have the technical ability to do what needs to be done (only a small subset of developers, mostly WMF staff, have the ability to sort 2FA problems out). None of these have anything to do with project-specific bureaucrats. All of these issues are problematic and highlight how poor the support for 2FA problem-solving really is. Jehochman had problems, but he has a broad enough range of Wikimedia/MediaWiki contacts that he was able to get them sorted; many enwiki admins don't have that depth of knowledge or the right contacts. There are over 5000 admins on Wikimedia projects, and many of them have never been to meet-ups, never posted significant personal information publicly (in which case, an imposter could have found that information as well), don't have a [non-mandatory] email address attached to their acount, and again it's not possible to log into a globally locked account so they can't "reject the request". I get the motivation to want to push forward 2FA (although with changes that were made to admin rights back in November, and the splitting off of interface admin rights, I'm not really sure there's much that a hijacked admin account can do that can't be undone pretty quickly); however, without proper WMF developer and staff support, the end result will be bad for enwiki, and potentially disastrous for projects that only have a handful of admins. And no, it should absolutely NOT be left to volunteers to sort out who is and isn't a legitimate account holder; site security is the WMF's bailiwick, and if the stewards had any sense, they'd say so and also push for a proper 2FA extension. Risker (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I just want to echo Risker’s comment that there really isn’t much that someone with +sysop can do that can’t be undone, which I think is a fact that often gets glossed over here. For those of you who aren’t aware, Risker was probably the most active functionary dealing with the account compromises of this fall. She’s hardly an anti-security advocate. The simple fact is, however, that compromised admin accounts are more about egg on our face than anything else. Yes, security is needed, but let’s not pretend +sysop is like having the keys to Fort Knox. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks, TonyBallioni. I'll mention in passing that the overwhelming amount of damage done by compromised accounts in the past year has been done by compromised ordinary editing accounts; the only activities that compromised admin accounts performed that ordinary editor accounts could do were a few blocks (now not possible due to changes in what blocked admins can do), and editing of a couple of fully-protected pages, and the total amount of vandalism/misbehaviour of the compromised admin accounts was well under 5% of the total number of problems. I know the security folks came up with some suggestions for preventing that kind of "ordinary account" harm too, and some of them have been put in place, but the ones that are pretty typical for most websites (e.g., automatically blocking or deleting accounts that have been inactive for a set period, requiring mandatory email links, etc) are antithetical to existing core policies and of course can't be applied to the Wikimedia site. Risker (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Everything Risker said is spot on. I'm a named editor, which helped me authenticate outside normal channels. I have maintained decade long email correspondence with other admins, to the extent that they can recognize my writing "voice" and my references to past events. Many other editors and admins can't generate that level of trust independently of being able to login. Also, it is worrisome that developers are using LDAP for user authentication. LDAP is weak security They should set up Kerberos for authentication and use LDAP for storing identity attributes, which is how network security is meant to be. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Risker, thanks for being engaged with this matter. I think we broadly agree. Perhaps I was unclear -- my goal was to propose the bureaucrats handle the "bureaucracy" of the requests in accordance with the wishes of the local community and in light of the threat model that community faces. The bureaucrats would be then responsible for reviewing requests that arrive from an IP or via email since the affected user cannot log in. The bureaucrats would review these requests and vet them in accordance with local community expectations. The 'crats would then forward vetted requests to whoever is empowered to act up on them -- presently developers, who have a preference for using phabricator for ticketing, which is why I suggested it. The relatively small population of bureaucrats would be able to deal with whatever klunky interface is present as part of their duties until things improve. To your point about many users not having email, public identity, etc. I agree that all those things are valid points. The most universal way to vet a 2FA reset request is time. If someone edits every day, then abruptly stops and requests (even anonymously) a 2FA reset, then makes no additional edits for (e.g.) 7 days, it is plausible to presume that the request is genuine. My hope would be that we will evolve towards an environment where admins start putting some form of backup identity information on their user pages -- a public key for which they retain a private key, a list of other users who they trust to authenticate them, a real-world identity, etc. While there is no one mechanism that works well for everyone, there are mechanisms that, all together, will work for the vast majority of admins.
I disagree that this is best handled by stewards. Stewards do not know the local community, the local user base, or the local culture. I think there should be allowances for the vastly different situtation in, for example, EN vs. ZH. And I think that many of the means of being sure that someone is who they say they are require local knowledge. UninvitedCompany 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As I see it, the best way to handle 2FA resets would be to make users provide multiple ways of confirming identity when they sign up for 2FA. Once such a system is in place, resetting 2FA could be handled primarily or entirely by automated system. As pointed out above, all accounts are global now so the 2FA confirmation system would also need to be global. Also as pointed out above, site security is primarily the responsibility of the WMF, so the Foundation alone should be responsible for operating and maintaining any 2FA confirmation system. The only community input I see as needed would be deciding what identity confirmation methods to implement. Sario528 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
All that you would need to do is post a SHA-3 (or similar) hash on your user page and if you happen to get locked out of your 2FA and need a reset is provide the answer to the steward so they know it's you who is the true owner of the account. — Moe Epsilon 02:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Stewards cannot handle 2FA reset as of now and you must contact ca@wikimedia.org to get it unlocked. — regards, Revi 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
2FA system is global, and if you can convince zhwiki crats to unlock your 2FA, you're doomed on enwiki. Head shot. — regards, Revi 13:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Admin resignation

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

  • Please remove the admin flag from my account. I'm no longer in touch with changing WP policies. I'm now mayor in a small and beautiful Moravian market town, see Boleradice. It is far more difficult administration, I'd say:) You are welcome to visit us and taste our great wines. ...and I also have two kids. Wikipedia is a good experience. I'll be around here, sometimes. Good luck to you all. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Congratulations on becoming mayor! 28bytes (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nv8200pa

Please remove the administrative flag from Nv8200pa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Nv8200pa. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 23:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remove sysop flag

Am full-time with further studies and don't presently have need for admin tools. Can Euryalus (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) please be desysopped for now. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service and let us know if you need other tools in the meantime. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of admin privileges (HereToHelp)

I am voluntarily relinquishing my administrator privileges. I haven't been active in years and I'm honestly surprised you haven't taken them yet.

Fun fact: back in the day, most people approved my RFA based on my username alone. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If you didn't show up we'd have finally processed your removal in a few days. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of admin privileges (StringTheory11)

Please also remove the admin rights from my account. I haven't used the tools at all in nearly three years and don't foresee becoming active again anytime soon — I've got multiple years of grad school ahead of me. Like the above poster, I'm surprised they haven't been removed for inactivity yet. Maybe I'll request them back if I return one day, but I prefer writing content to administrative work anyways. Best, StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service (the admin inactivity policy has a very-very-very low bar for 'activity'). Best wishes for your studies! — xaosflux Talk 03:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019#June 2019

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

  1. Syrthiss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  3. Moink (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
— xaosflux Talk 00:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Noting for the record that Flyguy649’s last logged action was in 2011 and Moink’s was in 2008, so both appear to be excluded from resysop without an RfA by the five year rule. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Od Mishehu (Level II desysopping)

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.

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion desysopping Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Would a bureaucrat please remove the permissions? For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 16:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useight (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I note that the edit filter manager (EFM) permission was left in place and later removed by someone else. It seems to me that we should routinely remove other permissions that imply a high degree of trust in these sorts of situations, particularly permissions like EFM and interface administrator (IA) that are rarely granted to non-administrators. Perhaps there should be a policy on exactly what is left in place. UninvitedCompany 18:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: the Interface Administrators Policy specifically calls for removal if -sysop for any reason. Feel free to update any procedural documentation on that one. — xaosflux Talk 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: (edit conflict) Note that Wikipedia:Interface administrators#Removal of permissions specifies, as circumstance 4, Upon removal of administrator access, for any reason. and that unlike EFM, only bureaucrats can remove IAdmin rights. However, WP:EFM specifies a process for removing the access of non-admins; following a desysopping, that process technically governs. Maybe it should be amended? DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've amended Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions to specifically include IAdmin removal in the procedure. — xaosflux Talk 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There are no “procedures” for removing rights assignable by sysops. If there is a good reason to be removed, they can be removed. Amorymeltzer has removed the permission, which in my view is appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure one or more previous discussion agreed that EFM rights are removed at the same time as sysop if EFM was self granted. They ought to normally keep it if they had it before sysop and reason for desysop doesn't itself merit EFM removal. Can't find the discussion though. -- KTC (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a big part of why I did it. It had been self-granted a decade ago, only logged changes to their "personal test filter" for about two years, and, in my opinion as an administrator, the reasons given for the desysop and from a checkuser were more than sufficient to indicate lack of trust in the position. I may well have treated a different situation differently. At any rate, the policy at WP:EFM says that a request for discussion or removal of the user right may be made at the edit filter noticeboard (emphasis mine). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Additionally the ArbCom clerks procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures) do mention that additional notifications may have been warranted here. — xaosflux Talk 18:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Though the section it appears in does seem to be not "in general" - @AGK: any thoughts on that? In any event, removal of EFM isn't a bureaucrat responsibility per se. — xaosflux Talk 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: regarding the above as well, it looks like after this came up in the past the clerks procedure was not notify WP:EFN during ArbCom desysops, such that an administrator could review the situation and process removals if needed (assuming it was not already an arbcom remedy from a case). — xaosflux Talk 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that makes sense, but I don’t think we need a formal process if an admin who is competent at such things notices it at WT:ACN and actions it then. They can always request it back. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Notifications were sent to Od Mishehu themselves and to WP:AN, which I think about covers it. If you were asking because I did not cross-post, it's because the new ArbClerkBot automatically syndicates an announcement. Which is a great help. AGK ■ 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@AGK: I'm referring posting to WP:EFN when If the desysopped editor has self-granted edit filter manager rights, post a note to the edit filter noticeboard for review as listed on the clerk procedures. — xaosflux Talk 21:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Will follow up on this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks (as it's not really a 'crat matter). — xaosflux Talk 04:16, 6 June 2019 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

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.

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee linked above, please remove the sysop bit from Rama (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks like Xeno beat me to the click. — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 6 June 2019 (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.

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

Was moved. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 11 June 2019 (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.

Moved to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
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.

Resysop of Fram

Fram has been unblocked. I see no community consensus that the administrative user rights of Fram should have been revoked. Can anyone think of a reason the user rights should not be restored without delay? Alternatively, restored following the standard 24 hour hold period for commentary? –xenotalk 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram is still technically banned from en.wp. The actual T&S ban has not been reversed yet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram is unblocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
A block is different from a ban, and you know it. He may be unblocked, but any editing he did here would immediately be seen as a violation of the ban, and the last thing we want at this moment is for WMFOffice to escalate this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not a 'crat any longer but there was nothing offered by even the near-silent WMF that suggested Fram abused the tools. The desysop wasn't under a cloud, so a technical re-sysop is just natural. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fram is currently banned from enwiki, per the office action. If a bureaucrat were to restore the sysop flag at this point, that may well lead to a de-cratting. ~ Rob13Talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to restore rights, the 24 hour hold is not the major issue as Fram remains office-banned. You would be acting outside of any established norms. Maxim(talk) 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Fram should be re-sysopped in 23 hours time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) There is nothing normal about this situation. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Office actions#Secondary office actions.

In extremely rare situations, the Foundation may become aware of circumstances and information regarding major breaches of trust performed by Wikimedia functionaries or other users with access to advanced tools that are not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons and therefore can not be handled through existing community governance mechanisms. In some of those cases the abuses reported may not rise to the level of irreversibly expelling Wikimedians from the communities; however, they may be severe enough to have breached the community’s trust in the individuals involved and therefore warrant removal of administrative rights. Removal of user rights are usually either permanent or long term. Rebuilding trust is not impossible, which is why individuals are encouraged to reflect on their actions leading up to their advanced rights removal and consider how they may best serve the communities moving forward. In situations of long term removals, and once the no-rights period has elapsed, a contributor may have to fulfill additional criteria before they are permitted to reapply for advanced rights; those are made known to them at the time of the removal of advanced rights.

Reversing an office action out of process is not something that [is] not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons. And, reversal of an office action that has broad community opposition is not breach[ing] the community's trust. There is no grounds for an office decratting here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge Fram is currently under a WMF Ban, and access removal was an office action. So summary restoration is out of line of the bureaucrat mandate. Additionally, as the access removal was clearly not for inactivity or voluntary, an RfA should be required to ensure community support, following the prohibition period of the ban. — xaosflux Talk 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    To the best of your knowledge, Fram was banned for a year yet has been unblocked. To the best of your knowledge, you have absolutely no idea why Fram was de-sysopped, so to mandate another RFA is complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Blocks are technical measures that may be used to enforce bans, removal of blocks does not negate a ban. — xaosflux Talk 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Lawyering. The community have already summarily ignored an office action by reinstating Fram's editing ability. You're just lawyering ("technical"? What?) to avoid hard questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The 24 hour hold certainly should apply; bureaucrats should not be hasty in heated circumstances such as these. Unless the WMF re-blocks Fram or issues a new statement, I see no reason he shouldn't be re-sysoped tomorrow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • While I agree with TRM, I understand if no crat wants to stick their hand in this fire and I dont think you can reasonably hold it against them if they stay away from this. Its also functionally a grey area in that the crats are elected by ENWP community to enact the decisions of the ENWP community in an impartial manner. Restoring rights that have been removed as part of an office action *but have no backing from the community* is clearly not something that has any real precedent here. The removal was not at arbcoms or the communities request and we generally as a community dont *want* crats to start getting creative - crats mandate is not to act on behalf of or for the WMF in any sort of dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If ever there were a situation where allowing a little time to pass might make the consensus clearer, this would be it. I myself would wait until it is clear whether the community consensus will prevail regarding the block itself. UninvitedCompany 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UC)

Agree, additionally I'd want to see a response on-wiki from Fram (which would also indicate that they are willing to violate their WMF Office ban). — xaosflux Talk 20:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally am not willing to take any bureaucrat action on Fram's account either way until the situation is resolved. Resysopping Fram is also not supported by the relevant policy, and there's no precedent to draw on. It's not for the bureaucrats to set precedent by acting unilaterally. For now, I think it's better for the situation to become clearer before acting. --Deskana (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My sense is that this it is too soon for 'crats to be taking any action here, irrespective of the various arguments for/against re-sysopping. Let the dust settle, and give WMF a chance to respond to the recent unblocking. There's no point in discussing a resysop if there's going to be a wheel war about the unblocking. Waggie (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Both the block and the desysop were WP:OFFICE actions, so it was out-of-process to unblock, and it would be out-of-process to resysop. Why are we talking about procedural stuff like a 24 hour hold when we have so flagrantly disregarded the procedures surrounding WP:OFFICE? In the past, the Arbitration Committee has threatened to summarily desysop administrators who modify office actions, see [12]. Any bureaucrat seeking to resysop here, 24 hours or otherwise, would put themselves at risk to losing their bureaucrat access. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, the reason why it's being mooted is because the community has agreed that Fram should be unblocked, and has been. There was no reason given as to why he was banned in the first instance, so retention of his sysop status should be natural (as a c.f. I was blocked while retaining admin rights). Why is this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    There are some technical considerations, the executive summary is that no one cares enough that blocked admins can still do some admin things to fix that leak. See my talk. –xenotalk 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sure. There has been no indication that Fram has warranted a desysop. But I'm now seeing how the game goes. He's unblocked but still "banned" which means that if he dares edit, the ban will be lengthened. He didn't abuse his tools once. Amazing. Way to go WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Office actions are explicitly outside of the control of community consensus. Procedurally, we can't overturn their action no matter what our consensus is. It's quite dictatorial, but this is what it is. Resysopping would still be reversing an office action. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Can't say I blame the 'crats for not wanting to act here. In fact it would be outside of their remit to be "activist" and re-admin Fram without a mandate to do so.
However I completely disagree with the contention that Fram needs a new RFA should they be unbanned. The local community had no say in this process, and there is no indication he has lost this community's trust to handle the tools. That is the only reason to require a new RFA. Vague handwaving at secret evidence that as far as anyone knows has nothing to do with admin tools does not make this under a cloud by any previously accepted definition. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Until WMF actually get round to telling us why they decided to desysop Fram, this is just a purely cosmetic desysop, made by a few people in California. There's no cloud. As soon as any ban expires, Fram gets to be a sysop again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The ban will expire in 1 year, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For every desysop of Fram there should be someone willing to re-sysop again. They're not going to desysop everyone. That would cause irreversible harm if they did that. But they'll always be those who consider their admin rights to be higher than their morals. CassiantoTalk 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I'm with Beeblebrox on this. Fram, though he may be a bit strident and controversial at times, has not generally lost the confidence and the trust of the community as a whole. Should he be reinstated as an administrator, it would be best done without any sort of RfA or pseudo-RfA process. Of course, given the standing ban, etc., I would certainly not fault any bureaucrat for taking no action at this time; or, once action is authorized (or independent action is taken), implementing a 24-hour hold. All the same, when all's said and done, I do wonder who shall be the courageous. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Going to agree with Beeblebrox here; absent a motion or determination by Arbcom that Fram's tools should not be reinstated at the end of whatever is going on at T&S, there is no valid reason not to return the tools at the end of that time, should he request them. If Arbcom believes he no longer meets the requirements to be an admin on this project, then they need to bite that bullet themselves. We have a community desysop process - it is via Arbcom. While I would never counsel the bureaucrats on this project to deliberately rescind an OFFICE action, once that action has expired, I can't really see a reason why the tools would not be reinstated upon Fram's request as of this writing. (And given the fact that almost nobody on the T&S team or the chain of individuals who are involved in OFFICE action decisions are actually in California and in many cases aren't even in the US, I think it may be time to let go of that canard.) Risker (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
But "SanFranBan" rolls off the tongue so nicely... Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysop (Nick)

Nick (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)

If you could remove my sysop bit please. I'll re-collect it when the Wikimedia Foundation comes to its senses and properly deals with the Fram block, the Floquenbeam desysop and the inevitable Bishonen desysop. I'm not all that busy/useful anyway, and don't have the time to really get involved in challenging the WMF at this time in the way Floq, Bish and others have. Nick (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Nick: Why not hang on to it long enough to unblock Fram if the WMF undoes Bishonen's unblock? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No need, Ken; it turns out handing back the tools amounts to the same thing. I'm only now realizing that unblocking Fram is a mere gesture (doesn't mean I regret making that gesture), and makes no difference to his ability to edit. See explanations on User talk:Fram: he remains banned, and will presumably be hit even more harshly if he does edit, even once. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC).
Bish - It's true that Fram remains banned and that they should not, under any circumstance, edit here at this time. However, there is more than a "mere gesture" here. Each unblock requires the office to 1) re-block Fram, 2) de-sysop the unblocking admin, and thus 3) further inflame the situation. If you hand in your tools with a "I resign because of the conduct of the WMF" comment, the WMF can simply ignore it all until it blows over. It makes no difference to Fram, perhaps, but it makes a difference to 1) us and 2) the WMF, who is forced off the sidelines. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a novel argument that it is the WMF inflaming the situation when an admin acts in blatant violation of the Terms of Use they agree to when they edit this site. ~ Rob13Talk 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Out of interest, do you mind telling us how you know what actions Fram was actually banned for? I've not seen the evidence behind the ban, ArbCom hasn't, the community hasn't. Have you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I never said I did know. I know that Fram was already warned for his actions toward Laura, because he told us as much, and hasn't interacted with her since due to an IBAN. I can logically conclude he must have been banned for something else, especially given the WMF explicitly stated he had continued the pattern of behavior that initially got him warned and then reminded of that warning. ~ Rob13Talk 13:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, so you were stating your personal conclusions as fact (as, also, are many others). Thank you for the clarification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Let me know when you want it back. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice: WMF desysop of Floquenbeam

Please note, the WMF Office has removed sysop access from User:Floquenbeam with the log entry: Foundation Office Action - Temporary (30 days) - assisting user under Office Action. This is mostly for our records, just as with Fram - BN is not the best venue to discuss the WMF actions. I have no way to know what will happen after 30 days (i.e. will WMF staff restore access, or will they leave it to us to deal with). I suggest a discussion at WT:ADMIN is held to determine if users that are involuntarily desysoped by office actions can be summarily restored upon their request, or if they will require a new RfA. Of course a new RfA is an available route if the requester chooses to go that way. My current read of the administrator policy says this is not a current route, as it is only available in cases of voluntary resignation or for inactivity. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the admin policy possible options started at: Wikipedia talk:Administrators. — xaosflux Talk 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Quoth WMFOffice: "If they wish for their admin rights to be restored, a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse, and the community may decide on the request at that time in such or another way." (for clarity) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: thanks, I didn't see that note (but haven't searched everywhere yet). So this is "left to us", thanks for that note. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/901457495 - diff for our notes. — xaosflux Talk 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: The WMFOffice account didn't add extendedconfirmed, which appears to be the standard practice when removing +sysop. Of course, there are other rights that could be granted for the 30 days as well, but those could appear as circumvention of the desysop... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: it will be auto-granted on Floq's next edit. We only need to do it manually if it was manually removed past the autopromotion period in the past. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I don't see any other prohibition on "lesser" access listed, and most would not be able to "interfere" with the WMF Office action. I highly suggest that if Floq want's some other flags in the mean time to use the normal WP:PERM process and let someone completely uninvolved deal with the request. — xaosflux Talk 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Also note that Meta interface does not have 500/30 userrights, and you can't add/remove any user rights that does not exist on Meta (when trying to manipulate the user rights on Meta). That's why I had to grant +steward to remove researcher access on this wiki from someone in the past. — regards, Revi 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: although the WMF clearly has the desysop right, they've said it was temporary. For me the only meaning of that is that it should be automatically restored after 30 days. The WMF office doesn't have the right to advise on an RfA in any case. And to repeat myself, there's no need for an RfA if the desysop is temporary. It's my guess that the person who wrote the statement isn't familiar with how we work. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
To me the meaning of the note is that after 30 days Floq can either (a) stand for adminship at RFA (either self-nominating or accepting someone else's nomination) or (b) be resysopped in another way; the choice is the en.wp's community. Personally I would wait for Floq to either (1) start/accept an RFA nomination or (2) ask here. If they choose (2) it would be up to the crats to determine whether to flip the bit themselves (presumably after the standard 24 hours) or ask for an RFA. If anyone else is temporarily deysopped by the WMF (over this or anoyter matter) the same options would apply to them unless specified otherwise by the WMF when blocking. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I said it elsewhere, and I will say it again here. I think it is unavoidable that the resysopping of Fram, Floquenbeam, and, potentially, Bishonen will go to ArbCom since the policies which relate to it can be read differently, and they can even be read as contradictory. It would be advantageous to use this month and file a clarification ArbCom request (or even a full case if needed). I unfortunately do not have time to do it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked Fram. Stand by for the next desysop. Bishonen | talk 07:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

Should you do so and be desysopped, I will restore your admin rights if I remain able to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Desysop (Ansh666)

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.

Hi crats, please remove my administrator rights. I'm also going to waive my right to automatic resysop - I'll run another RfA if I want to come back. The only userright I'd like is autoconfirmed. If you have any other questions, please contact me at user talk:ansh.666, as I'll be blocking this account once this edit is saved. Thanks, ansh666 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note, as a matter of policy, there is no "waiving" of that - however you certainly would never have to exercise it as filing an RfA is your option. — xaosflux Talk 13:28, 13 June 2019 (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.

May be best if Crats don't risk appearing to side with perceived harassers and abusers

Thread withdrawn by user (questions or concerns about individual bureaucrat actions are best directed to the bureaucrat in question first). –xenotalk 15:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There have been comical suggestions Fram might have been banned for telling Arbcom to F off. WMF have been crystal clear that Fram was banned as a result of reports relating to (what they see as) "harassing and abusing others." In fairness, it's 99.999% likely Fram never intends to harass anyone, they merely try to uphold the integrity of the encyclopaedia. Something at which, in some ways, they are fantastically good at. Also, the vast majority of Fram's attacks are against male contributors, AFAIK there's only been a single female who's been subject to his sustained attentions. But Fram's 14 years of contributions has abundant examples where he took enforcement actions that could be seen as harassment by the WMF, or in indeed by regular editors.

On commons, Fram has repeatedly singled out Laura, leading various net denizens to conclude she might be the "grass", and hence to start up further hostility against her. Fram's long been subjecting that editor to negative attention. For example, this 2012 attempt to topic ban Laura, which was snow opposed, with Fram being advised to fix the mistakes in his own article creations, rather than focus his hyper criticism on a prodigious & friendly content creator like Laura. Instead of moving on, Fram kept on attacking , year after year, sometimes getting results when not enough sensible folk up turned up to defend Laura, e.g. with this 2014 attack. This is typical of a long list of repeated attacks by Fram against other highly active content creators, which WMF have likely examined in depth during their weeks of analyses. (Most of it not against Laura, and it's very possible she wasn't the one who reported him.)

As Doncram has stated, it gave ordinary editors a "tiny bit of hope" once the WMF finally took action on behalf of the numerous but powerless community of content creators, against a member of the Goliath like enforcement corps.

It's understandable that folk like Flo & Bish saw things differently, seeing WMF as the Goliath. Their courageous & timely actions were possibly even necessary to get the ideal resolution to this matter, which is for the board to persuade the Foundation to lift the ban on Fram, albeit with no censure for the WMF or those who supported them, and then for matters to be discussed calmly, to facilitate different sides seeing each other's point of view.

It's less easy to understand why crats decided to resysop Flo without waiting for the 30 days to expire. The project could have survived without Flo having the tools for a few weeks. The action achieved nothing essential, and makes it harder to build bridges & heal the distress caused by this incident. With Crats siding so firmly with the enforcement crew, which some will see as being not just against WMF, but against the wider community of powerless regular editors, no wonder there's "entire private groups of people agreeing with (the DJ) too scared to post."

The resysop was unnecessary and uncratly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: BN is not for your opinion on crats. Post this to the ArbCom request posted by WJBscribe. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Without addressing the other points, WJBScribe acted on his own. This was certainly not a decision of the crats as a whole, see the discussion above. --Rschen7754 14:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It's nice how you perceive the threads which led to her TBans as examples, where not enough sensible people turned up and those where she evaded sanctions as the example of optimal discussions. I have known you as one of the sanest members of the community for a long while, but this ain't it. ∯WBGconverse 14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The WMF have been a lot of things this week but I didn't expect to see anyone describe their actions as "crystal clear". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_40&oldid=1136464128"