Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

Shortcuts

WP:BN
WP:BNB

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

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

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

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

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 17:55:31 on December 3, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Notice - large number of pending admin removals for next month

This has moved well past the initial point of the thread; no issues seem to have been raised so the matter can be considered closed. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Due to the new admin requirements, there are a very large number of admins listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023. This was expected, but can be quite striking to see. If anyone sees any thing wrong with the reporting, please bring it up sooner than later. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather striking to see a list that long, but it really drives home the point of the new rule: having that many admins who are not actively engaged with the community is not a good thing, as we've seen again and again. That's not to say anyone on that list is a problem, rather that none of them are a problem yet. The lowest numbers on there are two admins who have made seven edits in the last five years, and some that have not used admin tools in over a decade. One thing that did jump out at me is Xdamr, who is already listed in the above section for removal this month. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox thanks for the note, should fall off during the next bot run - will watch for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done This was resolved during the next bot update. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup. For those of us who've been around a while it's an extraordinary list, and not just because of the length. 131? That more than decimates the admin corps... BusterD (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of doing this is that these folks already are not admins. What it does is make itr clearer how many admins there actually are. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. I was bemoaning the number despite my qualification. My first admin coach is on the list and several editors who were important influences. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's always sad to see recognizable names getting desysopped due to inactivity, but it's worth keeping in perspective that this administrative "culling" was not merely "expected", but was actually carefully calculated by the architect of the proposal, Worm That Turned. IIRC, Worm made it clear that based on his statistical analysis, he believed that the list could and should be longer without it negatively affecting the project, but that he was choosing to put forward a very conservative proposal that had the highest chance of passing, rather than trying to get the activity requirements to where they should actually be. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Swarm, you give me too much credit. It is terribly sad to see so many names on the list, but I am glad to see it's about a 1/3 less than it was in March, where we could have lost nearly 200 admins. That implies that about 60 odd admins have come towards re-entering the community and that's fantastic news. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of sad to see so many names on that list that I remember as very active at one time. Of course, I've had my low activity spells as well (just 17 edits in all of 2017), but I came back. Donald Albury 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your lowest 5-year period (2013-2017), you made 837 edits. That's more than 8 times as many as would be required to not get desysopped under these rules, and I would argue that factor matters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes gotten bummed out about/tired of WP, but I have never completely burned out. I will also note that I did support this new rule. Donald Albury 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seeing Pedro on that list bummed me out. He was one of my first friends here, back in the mid-00s. To paraphrase Dwight from The Office: "While today it is them, we all shall fall." Useight (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Useight. You're a genuinely fine person, and it's been my pleasure to meet you, albeit virtually. Pedro : Chat 21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three on the list are still active around the movement, which is good (the developer folks I could identify, Tim, Aaron, and Hashar). I daresay they're being useful still. Izno (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the names on the list should be considered "not useful", and may well be significantly involved elsewhere in the movement, which is great. However, if they're not active in en.wp, they shouldn't be holding on to the admin toolset, inflating the stats and giving people a false sense of security. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we are looking at this as losing administrators, we are wrong. If you aren't making edits and not doing any administrative actions, you are an admin in name only. It might be sad to see users that were active/well respected over five years ago, but it's not like the editors cannot become good editors again if they wanted too. It does feel like we are looking at a series of users that inflating our overall number of sysops, but obviously there's a lot more to do than be an admin - so we don't need to be fretting about losing respected editors. Things will even out shortly after this mass exodus. I'd be happy to support or nominate an admin that lost the toolset due to inactivity if they wanted to run again. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Cecropia on that list, who is also a Crat. There may be others too - it's a long list, and I skimmed it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cecropia is the only current crat on the list. Izno (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those not following along closely at home, the bureaucrat activity requirements were harmonized with the new requirement in an April 2022 BN discussion. –xeno^talk 02:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran into an admin I was unfamiliar with who I saw on the Deletion log and when I checked them out, their last admin action was in 2010. So, I guess some inactive admins are interested in coming back to active service. But a lot of things have changed in 12 years.

But I do have a question for you, Xaosflux, will this admin inactivity review be done annually or just this once? Or will the bot handle this 100 edits/5 year review on a "rolling basis"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a continuous activity log, so it will be done monthly just as the other inactivity checks have been done in the past. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^that. A cycle can started 'anytime', but for practicality it is done once a month at the top of the month. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good policy or not, that comes across as a really toxic uncivil comment, and I don't think it represents a widely held view. Most of these admins have done an enormous amount to get us to where we are today. I'd like to thank each and every one of them, whether they choose to continue or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the various "sweep them out" comments (yeah, thanks for dismissing the hundreds of thousands of edits by previously committed editors like me @Roxy , really makes us happy for the unpaid effort...) I think I'll go for another plan, and log back in and start editing. Just for spite. The collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia has clearly long since gone. Pedro : Chat 21:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I came here to just get a desysop, as I don't really care. But the posts above, particularly Roxy's, dismissing casually the hard work of hundreds of editors are a disgrace. So I am literally going to edit to p*ss of Rory and his ilk. What a shame. What a shame. Pedro : Chat 22:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pedro Welcome back. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 22:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not, thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about the collegial atmosphere but I am sure everybody would appreciate if you do it. Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog has been blocked for one month for their comments on this page per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing#Roxy_the_dog_warned and behaviour history. SilkTork (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like overkill to me. The warning Roxy had should have been enough. I see Bish has shortened it to 24 hours and I hope that sticks. SilkTork, I'm very disappointed. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sad, and we as a community should stop treating inactivity desysops as if it were sad or something to be avoided or discouraged or kept to a minimum, because what is the alternative? If an inactivity desysop makes you sad, then what would make you happy? A lifetime of contributions? Is that what this community expects from its volunteers: once a sysop, you should continue to actively edit (and actively admin?) for the rest of your life? No, of course not! That would be silly. It's perfectly normal for someone to volunteer, even for years, and then to stop volunteering, and we should not treat this as if it's sad, or bad, or anything other than normal--and wonderful! Because the wonderful part is the part when they were volunteering, and we can't expect it to continue forever. Celebrate their contributions, don't lament that the contributions didn't last forever, because that's unrealistic. Sure, we might be sad because we miss particular volunteers who we worked with, but since we've had 1,000s of admin volunteers, we should expect to see hundreds of regular desysops as people naturally cycle through, and that's not sad, it's normal and wonderful. We shouldn't create the expectation that anything less than forever is sad. /rant Levivich (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 permission to run Synchbot

Unresolved

– Policy discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should global deleters be permitted to delete local pages when fulfilling m:Synchbot requests?. –xeno^talk 15:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi! I run the crosswiki Synchbot service, which lets users manage their own user pages across all wikis. That sometimes means deleting user pages, usually to use their global user page or remove old subpages. Synchbot has built-in restrictions to make sure such deletions are uncontroversial. For example, it won't delete the main user page if the user has any block history on the wiki, and it won't delete the talk page if there's any edit from another user.

Previously such deletions on enwiki used my admin access, which I just resigned per the new inactivity rules. I can still delete pages using the 'global deleters' global group, but I'd like to confirm whether the bot would be allowed to delete pages on the English Wikipedia without admin privileges under local policy. If not, the bot can also place speedy delete templates using criteria U1 instead. —Pathoschild (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild, crats can grant admin, but you need to follow WP:ADMINBOT in order to get approval for that to happen. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding. First, Synchbot is what the English Wikipedia would call a script, not a bot, so isn't subject to standard bot rules. Second, Pathoschild isn't requesting a separate admin account, but the social authority to use his existing global deleter group to perform admin actions. And (despite normally being a stickler on Wikipedia:Global rights policy issues) I see no reason why that shouldn't happen. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in any of the documentation or their description above gave me that indication, and Legoktm's comment below makes it sound like it is a bot. Will wait for further comments. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery and Legoktm are correct; I already have the technical ability to delete pages on every wiki, so I'm seeking clarification on whether I should use those technical rights on enwiki. Synchbot is a semi-automated script run through my main account, which I manually configure/start/monitor for each request on m:Synchbot. Historically it used my former steward access before global groups existed, since stewards at the time didn't want a separate bot account with steward access; now it runs under a web of local permissions, policies, filter rule exceptions, etc that would be difficult to migrate to a separate account. Feel free to ask if anything is still unclear! —Pathoschild (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Primefac, that seems unnecessary to me. Pathoschild has already been running this for years, and already has the technical rights to do so via a global group. That group is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Global rights policy so by policy it's undefined on whether it's okay. I would recommend by WP:NOTBURO that Pathoschild is allowed to keep running Synchbot since it's already been running for years without issue. Legoktm (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to all of the above. --Rs chen 7754 18:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this is quite a rare activity here (15 deletion this year, only 29 all of last year). It does seem to be quite uncontroversial, but I don't think this is something that us bureaucrats can just say "OK, because we say so" to. How to move forward then: I suggest a proposal to amend the Wikipedia:Global rights policy is the best way to define this; I don't think it needs a giant RfC or anything, but propose, advertise, update (assuming there isn't community resistance). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's uncontroversial and is existing practice why can the crats not properly invoke policy (IAR) to make a decision? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not existing practice. Enwiki consensus has been consistently and firmly against allowing non-administrators to delete pages for many, many years. There's never been any prior hint of making an exception for former administrators who resigned immediately prior to being desysopped for inactivity, and certainly not for right granted on meta instead of locally. That I both trust Pathoschild and have used Synchbot myself are immaterial; 30-odd speedy deletion tags per year aren't worth opening up this back door. —Cryptic 19:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic fair point - existing practice is in the eye of the beholder here. I am suggesting existing practice could be defined as "this function is happening now" and you're seeing it as non-admin deleting pages (though in this case it would be an admin bot operated by a non-admin who has the technical ability to delete pages on enwiki). I am not suggesting crats change the rules. I am suggesting that, for the betterment of our project, they follow policy (no back door) and ignore them in this particular set of facts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "bot" involved here. This is just a script that is run by the editor doing the deletions. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a point of order: has the consensus been against non-admins deleting pages or viewing deleted pages? I believe Pathoschild cannot view deleted pages nor is that necessary for what is being done here. --Rs chen 7754 19:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the right says The group lets members delete and undelete pages on all wikis, so that's a bit of a moot point since they can do both; unless there's something very special about this right, one cannot undelete without also being able to see those diffs. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pathoschild's global group does, in fact, allow him to view deleted pages. But that doesn't matter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Barkeep49, you might want to see this discussion (and the slink in it), in which a brouhaha arose from a global rollbacker inadvertently using their rights on enWiki. I have zero interest in ignoring policies if it relates to administrative permissions. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I was the main contributor to that brouhaha, and have no problems with this (and have been ignoring other users of that script when I run my periodic database query to find global rights policy violations). That section was really more about a misfeature in the script where it moved without leaving a redirect and then recreated the page to add a CSD tag (thinking there was still a redirect there) than the original issue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This function is happening now" = "Pathoschild deleted one (1) page since resigning the bit not quite three days ago, probably without thinking it through first". Even if this was a proper bot instead of a user telling a script to "go delete this list of pages", we have well-defined and -accepted policy requiring the operator to be an administrator. Tagging the pages is just fine. As I understand it, this is already something Synchbot can do. —Cryptic 19:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: to be clear, do you think people will actually have an issue with this if it went through the "proper channels"? Or are you just raising a policy objection? I agree with you policy wise that this has never been allowed, but I also don't see the point of what feels like extra bureaucracy just because Pathoschild is now using delete granted via a global group instead of local adminship. Legoktm (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure people would. The proper channels, as I see them, would be one of:
Pathoschild meets the onerous 20-edits-per-year activity requirements to remain a local sysop. (People wouldn't have an issue with this one.)

Pathoschild runs a new RFA on the 2nd of every month, immediately after being desysopped on the 1st. (An obviously ridiculous option, though I guess it wouldn't be needed for long, since it's hard to pass RFA these days in under 20 edits.)

Amend policy, in the proper place to do so, so that deletion can be spun out of the administrator-only toolkit. But only for insiders appointed on meta instead of being locally scrutinized. After telling the plebes for years that they can't have those privileges without going through a full RFA.

How can you not think people would have an issue with that? —Cryptic 19:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I boldly updated the policy before reading this. I presumed most people would prefer Pathoschild continue the task using the already-held global right without having to make token edits locally or shunt to the speedy queue. No prejudice to a WP:VPP discussion if you disagree. –xeno^talk 20:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I am uncomfortable adding global deleter to the policy in this way. Ultimately Cryptic is correct that we're talking about 30 csd tags a year and so spending a lot of community time in advance doesn't seem like a good use of community time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49: I don't think it's in the remit of bureaucrats to make this decision. Bureaucrats can't prevent anyone from using global deleter. Since Pathoschild is the only global deleter (in fact, it seems to have been created just for them), I would tend to agree with xaosflux that a simple update to the WP:GRP would be order. Since Pathoschild already had community approval to do this task, I actually don't even think a discussion is necessary since we would just be describing existing practice. Just create a new section of Wikipedia:Global rights policy (and if someone objects, ~~let the burden of proof rest with them~~ open a discussion). –xeno^talk 19:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done in Special:Diff/1125396581. –xeno^talk 20:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until the discussion here is done to make sure. But just to clarify in case we keep the policy edit: migrating to global user pages is the most common reason, but users can request crosswiki deletions for other reasons (e.g. to remove unused subpages or simplify a right to vanish request). So to cover what Synchbot does currently, the wording would be something like "Global deleters can use their rights to help users transition to global user pages or manage their own user pages crosswiki via the Synchbot service" (subject to the current restrictions like not deleting pages if they've ever been blocked). Would those be fine too? —Pathoschild (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need repetition here. Just "The English Wikipedia community endorses the use of the Global deleter group to run Synchbot" should suffice. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was just mirroring language from Meta-Wiki. –xeno^talk 21:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say that I find the idea of adding an entirely new global user group to en policy after a 2 hour discussion in the depths of wikipedia noticeboards is the greatest thing ever. Terasail ^[✉️] 21:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it as {{proposed}} since there's been a few objections. I also added "or otherwise manage their user pages" to reflect the additional functionality that can be requested. Since there's been objections, I think that additional discussion may be required, and this might not be the ideal venue (so-called "depths of Wikipedia!", I wonder what Annie would think...) –xeno^talk 21:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering how many non-admins appear here it definitely isn't the surface. Terasail ^[✉️] 21:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since Pathoschild already had community approval to do this task - no, xeno, Pathoschild was an admin, and thus their "community approval" was as an admin. They are no longer an admin, and thus they no longer have tacit community approval to delete pages. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They can be an admin again after 24 hours if they want, though - at least until 2023 they're a non-admin by rights only. In any case, given objections, I've changed the policy addition to proposed. What's the best way forward here? WP:VPP? WP:BRFA? WP:RFC at WT:GRP? –xeno^talk 21:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed account/signature. –xeno^talk 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can own a new phone tomorrow if I buy one today. Does that mean I own a new phone? This isn't a good point, and isn't how anything works in practise. They either are or are not. WT:GRP is watched by 100 people so isn't a good place, VPP is really the starting point on this sort of discussion. Terasail ^[✉️] 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was they still have the social mandate. I guess it’s not a good point since it will lapse soon (without a burst of editing). –xeno^talk 22:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If it's a case of allowing a global-perm user to use their global permission to delete pages on-wiki, I believe it would be either a Village Pump or AN to get approval/consensus. If the question is asked properly, I do not see any issue with it being passed. Primefac (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should global deleters be permitted to delete local pages when fulfilling m:Synchbot requests?. –xeno^talk 23:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly some level of debate on allowing deletions. I'm not sure we need a larger discussion in that case; I'll just change the bot to place speedy-delete tags on enwiki instead, and I can always re-enable deletions if we do reach a consensus on that later. —Pathoschild (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding and your global efforts. –xeno^talk 22:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the group per consensus on Meta (which was not restricted to "insiders" — how spooky!!) for Pathoschild, who previously had global deleting permissions as a steward, to continue to run and nice and helpful service for users. He's been using it uncontroversially across all projects ever since. Some global rights require the users to follow local policy (such as stewards), but intentionally no such restrictions were set up for this group as there is no level of control over content. Per global policy he should be fine to continue using it, even here, unless the community takes issue with that in which case it should probably be spelled into local policy.

And as an aside, discussions like this are part of the reason I no longer participate in wiki policy discussions. He's doing a helpful thing, he's following established policies (even if they aren't local). Why not let him continue? Strange world. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of Admin permissions for StuffOfInterest

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.

StuffOfInterest (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)}

After not being very active for a few years, well actually closer to a decade, it is past time to pull my Admin permissions. Please return me to the ranks of a regular user, where I started out 17 years ago. Thank you. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with thanks. Do feel free to let me know if you’d like any other permissions (rollback, etc.). –xeno^talk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having rollback since I still spot a boneheaded edit now and then. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you're all set for rolling back :) –xeno^talk 00:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Job Done
		Awarded to StuffOfInterest for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. –xeno^talk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Resyop Request Fribbler

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.

Fribbler (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 have returned after a difficult hiatus of a year and a half after my father's death and my diagnosis with epilepsy. I feel like I can now be active again.

Regards Fribbler (talk)

Fribbler (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Fribbler (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed in April this year due to inactivity. Last admin log was Jan 2021, however only 33 edits spanning the prior 60-month period. @Fribbler: do you realize this will immediately put you on track for inactivity removal under criteria 2? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural query: Am I reading correctly in that former admins can re-request the tools that are removed for falling below the 100 edits in 5 years requirement? And do they have to first achieve the activity requirement, or do bureaucrats just need to be reasonably convinced that they will? –xeno^talk 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting January 2023, they won't be able to re-request the tools. Since it's still 2022, the new activity requirements technically haven't come on line yet, so this request is valid (provided that the answering crat is reasonably convinced Fribbler intends to return to activity). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno and @Pppery the RfC was unsurprisingly silent on this (creating timing of edge case headaches has become routine in these policy updates, leading to revisits such as this), so it seems that Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship is all that guides this. The policy was not modified to create a new disqualifying condition in the last RfC. Someone putting themselves in a continuous short-term loop of inactivity removal should raise the reasonably convinced argument. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet, but surely it's implied, as the alternative would be a crat flipping the bit then immediately removing again? NOTBURO and all that. I suppose it could be argued that the individual may be gifted a grace period until the end of the calendar month, but that's mostly an artifact of bot convenience. I'd likewise imagine (IANAB) that in (nearly?) every such case that a request would implicitly fail the "reasonably convinced" test. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer actually it appears it would trigger the required warning cycle to start again. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Which for this item is noted specifically as Three months before the request for desysopping and again one month before the desysopping goes into effect. I actually think that's a pretty self-resolving conclusion, without needing any new policy or discussions: if crats aren't convinced, it doesn't need to be returned, but if they are and do, the individual has more than three months, after which either activity has returned or the bit is removed again and surely crats wouldn't be convinced a second time. I retract my above completely! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on Xaosflux's comments, Fribbler's last 100 edits go back ten years. I'm sympathetic to people taking lengthy sabbaticals because of family issues, particularly over the past few years where Covid has disrupted families enormously. But, while it's possible for Fribbler to get 67 edits in the next three and a half weeks and avoid being immediately desysopped again, I'm not convinced they'll be able to do it in a manner that won't arouse suspicion - certainly, any straight return to administrative areas they haven't substantially touched in well over a decade is almost guaranteed to invite strong criticism. So I would advise Fribbler to forget about this and do some regular editing first instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold Bureaucrat note: I am not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, with only 1 edit in the last year, and ~33 edits in the last 5 years. Fribbler, I do welcome you back and look forward to you returning to editing first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to resysop. Fribbler has had barely any engagement in Wikipedia for more than ten years, and has given no indication of returning to activity now. Fribbler, much has changed on Wikipedia since you were last active, and some low activity admins have made mistakes which have caused concern; as such the community would prefer long term low activity users to fully engage with the project for a decent length of time to show understanding of current policies and expectations, before requesting the tools back. In your case, with the new rules, this would likely put you in the position of having to go through a RfA in order to get the tools back. I welcome you back as a participant in the project; there is much to do here, and all help is welcome. There is much good you can do without the tools. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think policy requires a fresh RfA per se, though I do think bureaucrats can reasonably decline the request absent either a return to the community's present activity expectation (ideally) or a very convincing commitment to do so before a subsequent inactivity trigger. Accordingly, I recognize - and second - the holding of the request. In the interim, I would be willing to apply other permissions (such as rollback) to your account, Fribbler as you work towards the relative activity levels now required of administrators. –xeno^talk 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the situation was that Xaosflux had put the request on hold to allow "sufficient discussion" among us Crats to see if there was consensus that Fribbler had returned to activity or intended to. And that if Fribbler was not granted the tools by the end of this month, then they would need to gain them back via RfA. Your comment, though, has alerted me to another possibility - that this request is being put on hold until the end of the month, to see if Fribbler will engage with the project sufficiently to encourage enough trust to grant them the tools. That is still possible. If Fribbler does sufficiently engage, I will support restoration of the tool kit, because that would be within the existing rules. Though, following the spirit of the RfC I would be looking for more than a few token edits - I would still be looking for full engagement with the project for a decent length of time given the lengthy disconnect. I'm easy with whatever we go with: discussion and close now (with the option to reopen before 2023) or hold until 2023. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork I'm missing a policy reason that would preclude Fribbler from returning to editing, then requesting reinstatement here after January? The new 100edit/60month rule that starts in January certainly creates a new removal criteria in addition to the 0actions/1year one; however it did not create new criteria in the reinstatement prohibitions. My hold above is indeed to allow the sufficient discussion as to this specific request, in the event other crat's are "reasonably convinced" for immediate return. Should we not be, I expect to convert that to a "not done". — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my original assumption was that missing the 5 year/100 edits requirement would trigger one-way removal (similar to the lengthy inactivity triggers) while on inspection this does not seem to be an outcome of the RfC. (See my procedural query above) –xeno^talk 14:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. I have now digested the above discussions - I hadn't realised that there would be a recount of three months; my reading was that if someone did not meet the requirement they did not meet the requirement, and that any warnings had already been given, so needn't be given again. So, we can turn down this request, but at any time in the next 24 months Fribbler can request the tools back again, and if they convince us they are or will become active, they can become an admin again for at least three months, even if they don't edit again after the resysop. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork that's my reading. I think the 100/60 rule does provide some guidance of community expectations in this matter, and am using that to help determine how "convinced" I am. While certainly not a bright line rule, I think in general I'll lean on asking those wanting to be restored to reach a re-engagement level that won't immediately require starting a count-down clock on them upon restoration. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts here are that at present we should not return the sysop bit to an individual who is not currently meeting the "100 edits in 5 years" minimum. That said, our levels for remove and return are not the same, for good reason. I would expect removals for inactivity to be a normal process and as long as the individual no longer meets our "inactivity threshold" and does not meet our "lengthy inactivity" threshold then we should be able to resysop.

In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically concur. Fribbler asked for the tools back prior to the 2023 cutoff and so long as at least one 'crat feels the return is genuine and Fribbler will re-engage with Wikipedia as it exists now then the bit can be flipped. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a crat, but I don't think that's what Worm said. I also think it's a misreading of the RfC. In the RfC I think the community said "this is the level we expect" 100 over past 5 years and also said "it's reasonable to give admins some time to meet this level". Saying that because the second part is true (phase in) that that the first part (expectation of activity) isn't a community consensus feels out of line with the RfC results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTT said "In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board." I agree with the consequent given the antecedant. I am not sure the antecedent is justified yet, though, but that is a different question. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A year-and-a-half hiatus? Not only do the last 100 edits go back 10 years, the last 200 edits go back 12 years to...huh, August 2009, just after they RfA'd. This person literally stopped editing once they passed RfA. This is a prime example of the type of situation that pisses off non-admins. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their first edit coming back in, minutes before they came back here to ask for the tools: adding an inline external link to a twitter account with the edit summary, "I think an external link is appropriate in this case." Um. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm not overly convinced that this editor has made much of an effort to being active before starting this thread - which to me is a bit of a red flag. We are talking about 100 edits over the previous 10 years. If the user could show that they are active, then going back to the 2009 RfA consensus would make sense, but without even that, I feel like we would be both promoting a user that is going to be straight into the possible desysop list, but also one that hasn't interacted with the community much (if at all) since that time. I'd feel more comfortable if they met the activity threshold first before being resysoped. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; regardless of which set of desysop rules we refer to (2022 or 2023 rules), restoration can be put on hold or declined if there is no willing bureaucrat to grant it. An average of 5 edits per year for the last 10 years does not make me confident that Fribbler has returned to the type of activity the community wants to see in an admin. As stated above, even if we were to grant, Fribbler would immediately trigger the lack-of-edits clause in January (assuming they maintain their current editing numbers).

In other words, I am firmly in the "decline" camp for now, but have no prejudice against Fribbler re-applying in a month or two to demonstrate that they are planning on meeting the new activity requirements (even if they are not 100% meeting them at the time of reapplication). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @Fribbler: per above, there are "return to activity" concerns that were not overcome, yet. So what now? Well, first as I said I above, Welcome back!. Next, you can of course immediately return to editing the encyclopedia, there are always areas open to contributions. Then, if you return to activity I suggest you review some of the changes related to administrators - Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators and the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS are good resources. Finally, you may re-request restoration here once you are active again. As a soft suggestion, this should be after at least 100 non-trivial edit contributions. Option 2, if you think we are just wrong about this you can ask for restoration from the community by opening a request at WP:RFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please remove bot flag (JarBot)

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.

JarBot (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)}

User:JarBot is operated by a user who is now globally banned. The account itself is globally blocked, but the enwiki page hasn't been updated, nor has the enwiki bot flag been removed. Recommending deflagging to avoid any confusion; the bot shouldn't be able to run, but people looking for a bot operator might go there. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done as the operator can not control it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duly added to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. Graham87 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Stephen)

Actioned; discussion as to the case result can be made at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Stephen arbitration case closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stephen (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)}

The Arbitration Committee have resolved in the final decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen that:

The administrative permissions of Stephen are restored.

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen § Restoration of administrative permissions. Please restore the administrator rights to Stephen (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stephen's rights have been restored. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Resignation of administrative privs

I've left a longer note on my talk page, but I'm in an extended period where I haven't been able to meaningfully contribute to the project, so I would like to voluntarily resign my admin status. I'll be happy to check in again when that changes, but please accept my sincere gratitude to everyone here for the amazing work Wikipedians continue to do. --joe decker ^talk 19:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for your service and I hope you'll be back soon enough! :) Acalamari 21:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]