Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Resysop Request (Jake Wartenberg)

Jake has kindly agreed to my suggestion that he withdraw his nomination, pending demonstrating a reasonable level of activity, so that a future request is less controversial --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:59, 12 July 2021 (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.

Jake Wartenberg (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

RFA (2009): Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jake_Wartenberg

I would like to resume using the tools. Thank you. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion re: Resysop Request (Jake Wartenberg)

Summary of bureaucrat positions

Hold for comments: Xeno, AmandaNP, Xaosflux

Restore permissions: SilkTork, Acalamari, Deskana, WereSpielChequers, Nihonjoe

Undetermined

Abstain: WormThatTurned (presumed)

This section is for bureaucrat comments

Prepared section for discussion. –xeno^talk 04:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I think we should resysop. Per the October 2019 RfC, "a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor". I think that condition is satisfied here, because Jake has said that he intends to return to activity and I have no particular reason to doubt that statement, and because he didn't resign under a cloud. I might doubt his statement that he intends to return if, say, he had made such statements in the past and they had proven to be wrong, but I don't think there's evidence that that is the case here. It's a good security practice to have your admin rights removed if you're going to be inactive for a while, and I wouldn't want to create a chilling effect where people are disinclined from doing so because they fear that they won't be able to get them back later, thereby increasing the number of inactive admin accounts which could be compromised. If the community as a whole isn't happy with this being the procedure, I think they should seek to change the relevant policies and guidelines. As a general rule I'm fine with deviating from policy and procedure if I think it's necessary, but I don't think it is here. I also think it's fine that people raised concerns, and that we're taking a while longer than usual to think about whether we want to do this or not; I think we should resysop, but I don't think there's a rush to do so, so I'm happy for us to hold for a little while until more bureaucrats have had a chance to comment. --Deskana (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaning restore, the requester has stated they intend to return to activity and AGF goes a long way. I was really expecting to hear other arguments below that didn't come up, such as questions if this is actually the same editor or a compromised account (due to it being a returning vanished account), but if no one thinks that is an issue I don't think this low activity is enough to hold back. Still listening to other comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Xaosflux, they made several edits in between their name changes, so didn't completely lose contact with Wikipedia; and in the editorial dispute on Psychoanalysis, they initially edited the article while logged out, then logged in as Jake Wartenberg to restore their name, before opening a discussion on the article talkpage, and revealed that the logged out edit (now oversighted) was theirs, which doesn't appear to be the behaviour of someone breaking into an exposed account. SilkTork (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Correction - I assumed they changed names at the same time as they resigned the tools, but the tools were resigned 3 August 2019, while the name change occurred (according to the logs you have displayed below) on 2 July 2020, and was changed back on 10 July 2021, so they only made one (logged in) edit between name changes. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Holding for comments (esp Dweller's question to the requester). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My three existing statements:
1) Jake Wartenberg has made at least 7 edits this year (one edit whilst logged out has been declared) outside of this page, mostly involving an editorial dispute on Psychoanalysis. As such it appears to me that they meet the minimum requirements to have the tools restored, and so I would support restoration. Wartenberg was an active admin up to 2013, after which they became less involved, and they make few meaningful admin edits after 2017 - however, they do make the occasional admin edit, and, though not a lively editor, they do make some edits. Enough to meet the requirements as set down by the community. There is no (as far as I am aware) criteria set out for what qualifies as "activity" - the nearest we have is WP:INACTIVITY, in which "inactivity" is defined as "neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months". This implies that "activity" must mean edits within the last 12 months (presumably outside of the request on BN), and so Jake Wartenberg qualifies with their 7 edits - which is more edits than they made in 2017 and in 2018. If the community wish us to be more stringent regarding assessment of activity (both for de and resysopping), then a new consensus needs to be sought, but it appears to me that under current guidelines and policy, Jake Wartenberg can be resysopped. SilkTork (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

2) My interpretation is that the community did not wish users to hold or regain admin rights simply as a badge, and wanted to see that a user was actively editing. The activity around Psychoanalysis is active editing. And is, as I point out, more activity than Jake Wartenberg engaged in for two successive years when he was an admin (and was not required to be desysopped for inactivity). My personal opinion is that one edit a year is too low an activity requirement to retain the tools, but while the community resists going any further in that direction, that is the criteria we have, and Jake Wartenberg exceeds that criteria seven times. There was some opposition to the judgement of "intends", which I can empathise with, and if Jake Wartenberg had not got involved in a dispute around the editing of Psychoanalysis and so essentially met the requirement for returning to activity, we might have had an interesting discussion as to if an admin asserting they intended to return was satisfactory or not. Difficult to call an admin an liar who has given no previous cause to think they have breached the community's trust. If we can't trust an admin to do as they say, then we can no longer trust their judgement, and that in itself would be grounds for a desysop - but we first have to trust them in order for them to break that trust. So, in this situation, we have a user who is involved in Psychoanalysis, and who has reassured us that they are returning to active editing. Given the wording of the policy, I feel Jake Wartenberg meets the requirements to be resysopped. If the community wishes us to be stricter, then policy needs to be reworded. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

3) [...] as a 'Crat I feel obliged to follow policy rather than my personal feelings or opinions, and when it appears to me that policy is inappropriate or unclear, and as a 'Crat I'm being asked to make a decision I don't agree with, then I'll indicate that by suggesting that policy needs amending - better that than a 'Crat ignoring all rules. If the community wish to prevent editors who have several years of low activity from getting the tools back on request, then the community need to get a firmer policy than one which allows one edit a year until the end of time, and then asks 'Crats to check if they either are or intending to do that before giving them back the tools. I'm not advocating that Jake Wartenberg should get the tools back on request, I'm saying that under the rules we have set ourselves, it appears to me that we don't have sufficient grounds for saying no. My personal preference in this case is that Jake Wartenberg goes to RfA, but I'm not seeing that as a fair interpretation of current policy, so with my 'Crat hat on I'm saying that they meet the requirement to have the tools back on request. They have not made token edits, they have got involved in a genuine editorial dispute. Having the tools back would not help them in the dispute as they are WP:Involved, but being involved in the dispute may have reactivated their interest in not just editing, but in sorting out problems and disputes. We must assume good faith, especially of someone who once held the trust of the community. Taking my 'Crat hat off, I'd like a bit more evidence of both Jake Wartenberg's long term commitment, and their understanding of current Wikipedia policies and expectations before the tools are handed back. That's my situation. I think one edit a year is too low, but that's the activity level that has been set, and I don't see a clear statement that 'Crat discretion is allowed in setting a higher activity level - we are asked to make a judgement on if the user has or intends to return to activity, rather than make a judgement on a minimum amount of that activity. SilkTork (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary: Resysop in this case because policy indicates we should; however, moving forward, we should as a community look more closely at what activity levels we feel are sufficient to ensure the community retains the trust of an admin (including those who have been inactive or resigned in good standing), which would require a new RfC. SilkTork (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

While I would like to see the policy changed to expect returnees to do a little more editing before requesting the tools be returned, I think Jake qualifies now under the currentrules, but would be less contentious in a month. I have compared their latest edits to earlier ones, but TBH there isn't much post return to go on.Ϣere SpielChequers 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I see no policy reason to withold the admin bit. I agree with the other comments that have already been made in this respect, and I have nothing further to add to them. As the policies stand now, we should restore the bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

General discussion re: Resysop Request (Jake Wartenberg)

A crat will be along shortly to note the mandatory 24-hour hold, but I will jump the gun in replying. The re-sysop policy states "Before restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor." Should bureaucrats feel you intend to return to activity? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I do intend to return to activity. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Note his account was renamed User:Renamed user 329872500 and now restored back to old name today.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename logs

2020-07-02T13:19:37Z
"olduser": "Jake Wartenberg"
"newuser": "Renamed user 329872500"

2020-07-02T13:19:51Z
"olduser": "Jake Wartenberg"
"newuser": "Renamed user huojbhurddcvii233"

2021-07-10T20:20:57Z
"olduser": "Renamed user 329872500"
"newuser": "Jake Wartenberg"

Note, it appears there was an error in one of the 200200702 renames, and it did not actually complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well if Jake Wartenberg has expressly stated they intend to return fully, then I think they deserve the mop back. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: Removal was on 2019-08-03 (Special:Redirect/logid/101008662) following a self request (Special:PermaLink/909205165#Desysop_Request_(Jake_Wartenberg)); last admin action was in 2019 (Special:Redirect/logid/100961137). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

8 edits in 2021 (all on 10 July), 3 edits in 2020 [1]. I suggest that some time should be allowed to elapse to see if regular editing patterns resume. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC).

The history that the editor has recently made very few edits, becomes involved in an edit dispute at Psychoanalysis and then asks for his admin rights to be restored makes me uneasy. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

Oh? Has that requirement now been added? Anyone have a link for that? — Ched (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators § Procedure, a subsection of Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of adminship. isaacl (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah! So that settles it then. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the years of good service speak for themselves. It is up to the 'crats of course but I don't see the value in asking this administrator in good standing to demonstrate that they are capable of editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC, this is exactly the point I was trying to make above. Celestina007 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

In any case, I think this will set an interesting precedent in what crat(s?) deem as "reasonably convinced" (not that I'm making a case for either outcome). --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Jake Wartenberg has made at least 7 edits this year (one edit whilst logged out has been declared) outside of this page, mostly involving an editorial dispute on Psychoanalysis. As such it appears to me that they meet the minimum requirements to have the tools restored, and so I would support restoration. Wartenberg was an active admin up to 2013, after which they became less involved, and they make few meaningful admin edits after 2017 - however, they do make the occasional admin edit, and, though not a lively editor, they do make some edits. Enough to meet the requirements as set down by the community. There is no (as far as I am aware) criteria set out for what qualifies as "activity" - the nearest we have is WP:INACTIVITY, in which "inactivity" is defined as "neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months". This implies that "activity" must mean edits within the last 12 months (presumably outside of the request on BN), and so Jake Wartenberg qualifies with their 7 edits - which is more edits than they made in 2017 and in 2018. If the community wish us to be more stringent regarding assessment of activity (both for de and resysopping), then a new consensus needs to be sought, but it appears to me that under current guidelines and policy, Jake Wartenberg can be resysopped. SilkTork (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're attempting to put numbers to wording that intentionally didn't have them. However, if 7 edits over 12 months is sufficient to restore adminship what level would not be sufficient to restore adminship? The wording you're interpreting came out of a community effort that wanted crats to be more stringent and so I am wondering how this bar honors that process and work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
My interpretation is that the community did not wish users to hold or regain admin rights simply as a badge, and wanted to see that a user was actively editing. The activity around Psychoanalysis is active editing. And is, as I point out, more activity than Jake Wartenberg engaged in for two successive years when he was an admin (and was not required to be desysopped for inactivity). My personal opinion is that one edit a year is too low an activity requirement to retain the tools, but while the community resists going any further in that direction, that is the criteria we have, and Jake Wartenberg exceeds that criteria seven times. There was some opposition to the judgement of "intends", which I can empathise with, and if Jake Wartenberg had not got involved in a dispute around the editing of Psychoanalysis and so essentially met the requirement for returning to activity, we might have had an interesting discussion as to if an admin asserting they intended to return was satisfactory or not. Difficult to call an admin an liar who has given no previous cause to think they have breached the community's trust. If we can't trust an admin to do as they say, then we can no longer trust their judgement, and that in itself would be grounds for a desysop - but we first have to trust them in order for them to break that trust. So, in this situation, we have a user who is involved in Psychoanalysis, and who has reassured us that they are returning to active editing. Given the wording of the policy, I feel Jake Wartenberg meets the requirements to be resysopped. If the community wishes us to be stricter, then policy needs to be reworded. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
How is 7 edits over 12 months "active editing"? 7 edits over 12 months is "not dead". The community doesn't resist going any further in that direction. Admins resist it. There's a difference. —valereee (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I've just lost patience with the "if the community wishes us to be stricter, then pass an RfC" after an RfC was passed and a significant percentage of crats were willing to ignore it (and for a candidate who went on a couple months later to resysop via the traditional method). I also don't actually have an issue with returning the tools to Jake. That's partly why I phrased my question in the negative because I don't want to make it about him. What is an example of an editor who would not qualify under the wording in question. Is it anything beyond an editor who requests return with their first edit (and even then I could see many circumstances where it would be appropriate - such as a longtime very active editor who resigns as a security precaution and comes back say 6 months later)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
And I'll note that successful re-RfA candidate has produced...absolutely nothing in the past six months. I expect to see an edit in another six months when we send them the so-helpful notification that if they don't make an edit, they might not be able to tell their friends they're a Wikipedia admin any more! —valereee (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
But why does that need admin rights? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The renewed administrator did perform many administrative actions after their request passed. As has been said by others, taking breaks from editing Wikipedia is a normal occurrence, and can help with long-term participation. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a longer reply typed out, but to answer your edit summary question: I think there'd be a strong case this applies if Jake had been desysoped for inactivity or met the inactivity requirements. I'm less convinced that it applies to people who weren't, just thinking through the context of both that RfC and the one that preceded it. The first RfC specifically asked about resysops based on desysops for inactivity (or I supposed I worded it 'resysops for inactivity'.) The 2nd RfC didn't mention it explicitly, but it was in that context.
This RfC also changed the 2 year inactivity re-RfA requirement for people who had been desysoped for inactivity to 1 year, but left it at 2 for people who resigned. I guess I'm just very surprised by this thread because my memory of the discussions that led to this was in the context to people who were desysoped for inactivity, which means I guess I view it somewhat like Ched below, it feels a lot like goalpost moving, which is a weird place to find myself in since I ordinarily am supportive of increased activity standards... TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This is why I noted I'm not actually opposed to re-sysopping Jake. If this were the distinction being made here, even with SilkTork using my least favorite crat stock phrase, I wouldn't be saying anything. But I don't see any crat making that distinction. So I feel the need to fight here so that crats don't say when that case happens "we already settled this with Jake Wartenberg so if you don't like it, change policy". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes, then we're in general agreement. I don't think this case should be precedent setting for future ones, but I also don't think its a good case to apply the 2019 update to because it was a resignation. If there had been a desysop for inactivity and then he'd requested back in similar circumstances, I'd agree with not restoring immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for what other 'Crats are saying when they use your least favourite phrase, Barkeep49, but what I am saying is that as a 'Crat I feel obliged to follow policy rather than my personal feelings or opinions, and when it appears to me that policy is inappropriate or unclear, and as a 'Crat I'm being asked to make a decision I don't agree with, then I'll indicate that by suggesting that policy needs amending - better that than a 'Crat ignoring all rules. If the community wish to prevent editors who have several years of low activity from getting the tools back on request, then the community need to get a firmer policy than one which allows one edit a year until the end of time, and then asks 'Crats to check if they either are or intending to do that before giving them back the tools. I'm not advocating that Jake Wartenberg should get the tools back on request, I'm saying that under the rules we have set ourselves, it appears to me that we don't have sufficient grounds for saying no. My personal preference in this case is that Jake Wartenberg goes to RfA, but I'm not seeing that as a fair interpretation of current policy, so with my 'Crat hat on I'm saying that they meet the requirement to have the tools back on request. They have not made token edits, they have got involved in a genuine editorial dispute. Having the tools back would not help them in the dispute as they are WP:Involved, but being involved in the dispute may have reactivated their interest in not just editing, but in sorting out problems and disputes. We must assume good faith, especially of someone who once held the trust of the community. Taking my 'Crat hat off, I'd like a bit more evidence of both Jake Wartenberg's long term commitment, and their understanding of current Wikipedia policies and expectations before the tools are handed back. That's my situation. I think one edit a year is too low, but that's the activity level that has been set, and I don't see a clear statement that 'Crat discretion is allowed in setting a higher activity level - we are asked to make a judgement on if the user has or intends to return to activity, rather than make a judgement on a minimum amount of that activity. SilkTork (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Note that activity may be more than can be found by looking at contributions, as Jake Wartenberg has edited while logged out on at least one occasion recently. See his comment on [2]Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Given that Jake has only made about 100 edits since 2014, and that he has just returned to editing after being vanished for a year, I think that in the spirit of the "Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" wording, the crats should seriously consider denying this request, with a suggestion to wait and request access to the tools here again after editing actively for a few weeks.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
He wouldn't have been desysoped if he hadn't resigned on his own. I don't really see how we can justify not giving it back to him. If someone is maintaining the minimum activity standard to keep the tools, resigns on their own, and continues the minimal activity standards, and then requests the tools back, there's really never a time where they wouldn't be presumed to be able to request them. Yeah, Jake had minimal activity before he resigned, but he wasn't in fact desysoped for inactivity. I think there's a strong qualitative distinction there.
Yeah, I think we should have stronger inactivity standards, and yes, the section everyone in pointing to was drafted in part to nudges us in that direction, but I think its bad policy to apply it to people who voluntarily resign and would never have been desysoped if they hadn't. That would just encourage people not to resign, which would go against the theoretical intent of our existing inactivity standards: increased account security. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Even if he hadn't resigned on his own, he most likely would have been desyssopped if he hadn't resigned on his own when he vanished, as users usually have advanced user rights removed when they exercise the right to vanish. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
It would make sense to change the policy so that returning former admins who'd had such long breaks were expected to "get back in saddle", do a few hours of editing over the course of at least a week before asking for the bit back. But it isn't the crats role to change policy, we work within existing policy until the policy changes. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The existing policy explicitly says "Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" I don't think making eight edits on the day of requesting tools after almost a year of inactivity is a return to activity as an editor.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As I noted above to SilkTork, if the wording that is in there now isn't suggesting that, what is it doing? Is there anyone beyond someone requesting restoration with their first edit (and sometimes not even then) who would be denied under that standard? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Reasonably convinced." I would be reasonably convinced that someone has returned to activity if they've made a few hundred edits a month for six months, not if they've made SEVEN EDITS in twelve months. That is not a return to activity. Maybe we need to define our terms here. Why does someone making 7 edits in 12 months need the mop? How is it even useful for someone with a few hundred edits in 7 years to have the mop? That sounds dangerous, not helpful. —valereee (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
No, "a few hundred edits a month for six months" is excessive in extremis and to expect anyone to do that is silly. However, even just a few dozen edits a month would give some level of credence to a re-sysop. Right now this application is absurd. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with TRM. A few dozen edits for say 3-6 months or higher activity over a shorter period of time would be what could reasonably convince me were I crat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, after an absence of seven years, I disagree. No one needs to make a few hundred edits a month to keep up, but to catch up after seven years? Yes, I think that's probably what's necessary. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
That's an absurdly high bar. Some of us have real life and jobs etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bickering

TRM, no one would get the bit without that level of activity. If they stop editing for seven years, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that for six months to show you've got up to speed. If you're too busy IRL to get up to speed, just wait a while. Life gets less busy. You can get yourself up to speed after the kiddos aren't in swim meets every weekend. —valereee (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
There's been no editing for seven years and no explanation as to why they need to have admin rights back again. Your patronising tone may work with others but not me. What's the purpose of this request? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Whoa, what? What are you talking about? —valereee (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Um, it's clear, no need to be patronising, as you know. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Gosh, you seem to be doing the same thing you were doing to Autodidact1. Just please explain to me what you mean. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
You mean avoiding ongoing disruption, ensuring that individuals who aren't aware of community norms are reminded of those, asking such individuals to respect WP:MOS etc? Is that what you mean? I didn't "do" anything to that user. Your tone is incredibly disappointing, especially for an admin. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
TRM, what you were doing to AD1 at their talk was refusing to provide a diff they asked for like six times, each time telling them (paraphrasing) "you know what you did". That's what you're doing to me here: telling me "it's clear" when I've clearly indicated it is not clear to me. —valereee (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
You missed the point they'd made literally two edits and I referred them to their recent contributions. Don't re-litigate this situation. You should know better. Perhaps you don't. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
wow. —valereee (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit count is an indication of ongoing activity and commitment, but it doesn't prove any work to "catch up." If one regularly read the Signpost and the Admin Newsletter delivered to your talk page every month, you'd be reasonably well caught up with zero edits. The edit content might show "caught up status" such as discussions at XfD or at AN (and, apparently and increasingly, BN) but that's a far cry from count. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Continuing the aquatic theme, reading the Signpost and Admin Newsletter without actually editing is like reading about swimming without getting in the water. E Eng 15:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Catching up, though, requires reading rather than edits. Having many edits at once would kind of run counter to the typical advice to ramp up slowly while reacquainting yourself with the editing environment. More edits would of course establish a log record that the editor was devoting more time to Wikipedia editing. isaacl (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
But why does that need admin rights? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I was specifically responding regarding the assertion of hundreds of edits being needed to catch up. I made no statement about needing administrative privileges during this period. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm interested to know why a confirmation RFA (to let the community know who this user is and to assess their recent contributions to check they're inline with current norms, guidelines and policies) isn't appropriate? Why does the user need the tools to "return to activity" here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This all seems to me to be yet one more effort to move the goalposts during the game. Another of the yearly "let's make it even harder for admins. who where trusted enough by the community by surviving a RfA, to return to the fold if they ever dared ever take a break". Jake is within the policies that the community established (or re-established), and yet they still get this push-back. Didn't do anything wrong? Oh well - too bad, we changed our minds and the rules aren't really the rules anymore because we decided there's a "spirit" of said rules that says no you can't come back. Go away. Edit if you want, but we no longer trust you to clean up any messes you find. — Ched (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, while I don't concur with everything Ched says, I do agree with "Edit if you want, but we no longer trust you to clean up any messes you find." How can you allow a user with fewer than 250 edits in the last seven years the mop?? Honestly?? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't speak for him, but I think Ched didn't agree with that statement when he said it ... Sdrqaz (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Define "during the game". Are you saying that because, in its infancy, WP decided it would be a good idea for admins to be admins for life, and that if someone a decade later left for seven years, and tons of policies changed, and that person decided to drop back in -- without actually seeming to to try to familiarize themselves with any of the changes -- that it's somehow "unfair" for people to say "whoa"? That this game goes on for twenty years, and that for anyone who was sysopped in the past, we have zero recourse even now? Because if that's the argument, we need to declare the game over now. —valereee (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Here's the problem as I see it: 'Crats are selected based on the idea that they will always follow policy to the letter when preforming 'crat actions. And yet, for some reason we've given them a policy that is open to interpretation, while the activity requirements are perfectly clear. I think they are woefully insufficient, but they are specific and clear and JW meets the requirements to have the bits restored. Restoring the tools to an account that "vanished" is not something that sits well with me either, that is supposed to be for permanent, irrevocable retirements, but again, the activity requirements don't mention it. So all that remains is that one 'crat be "reasonably convinced" which is hopelessly vague. It would be fine if it were directed at admins, or arbs or functionaries, all of whom are given broad discretion in their tasks, but as a policy to direct 'crats it's just bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, at least the policy says "Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the administrator permission, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a discussion among bureaucrats.", so there is at least a provision for a crat chat instead of decision by a single crat. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, with respect I don't think crats do always follow policy to the letter. I think that because there's really no shortage of crats choosing not to follow policy, including with this example that I noted above but there are definitely other examples of crats acting outside a strict adherence to following policy to the letter. Instead I think we should understand that our crat corp is inclined towards making/keeping people as admin. I think there are worst biases for this group to have, even as I don't pretend to like it, but that rather than "they're just being conservative" is the right frame I think to view crat actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Jake Wartenberg, I respect the fact you voluntarily handed in the mop ~~last August~~, but there are a couple of issues here that you may not be aware of since you've been gone so long. The first is that Wikipedia has changed profoundly since you last edited regularly, and starting adminning again until you've edited for a time first might be a bad idea. The second, and maybe just as important, is how automatic re-adminning looks after this length of absence, especially to non-admins. I know that's not your fault, but in the time you've been gone, there has been significant discussion about this, and it's become very clear that this is a fairly major source of resentment, especially among non-admin editors. What is seen as a somewhat better way to return after many years is to edit regularly for a while, then re-request. What would really be seen as the best way to return is to edit regularly for a while and then run an RfA. —valereee (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I second this statement, and I note that Jake Wartenberg resigned in August of 2019, not August of 2020.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reasonably convincing activity

Comment it seems to me that while there are disputes regarding whether the "activity" policy should apply here, there is also a question regarding whether a simple statement should be enough to make bureaucrats "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity". It would certainly be more reasonably convincing if JW had made edits on more than 1 topic, or had explained some level of detail regarding their intended activity. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
As written, it specifically allows declarations (that are reasonably convincing) to take the place of actual activity. Whether that should be the case is for another venue I think. –xeno^talk 04:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
But this is the venue to discuss whether the crats find this declaration reasonably convincing, and why/why not. "Reasonably convincing" doesn't mean "any declaration whatsoever," and to BK's questions to ST above, if this declaration and the 7 (or however many) edits are "reasonably convincing," then what sort of declaration/activity would not be reasonably convincing? I know crats might not like being asked to impose a minimum standard where one hasn't been imposed by the community, and that came up during the RFC, but the RFC passed and here we are, asking the crats to consider and explain whether this declaration and activity level reasonably convincing or not and why. Unfortunately, this is a test case for the implementation of the RFC. (I recognize the resigned factor might side step the RfC issue.) Levivich 14:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Levivich and Barkeep49, I would possibly regard more than one recent edit (within seven days, say) outside of the BN request and which was clearly not just a token/minor edit, to be evidence of a return to activity, and a statement of intent from an admin in good standing who has no previous history of not keeping their promise to be sufficient evidence of intention. In this case both of those criteria have been met. But difficult to put too firm a line on it, as circumstances may be different. I would prefer the community to agree reasonable minimal activity levels for users to keep/have restored their admin tools - such as 20 edits over the past three years. SilkTork (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sure this isn't news to anybody, but current Wikipedia inactivity policy allows editors to retain adminship indefinitely, simply by logging in once a year and making a few token edits. And fundamentally, that's exactly what this user has always done. The only difference here is that the editor deliberately renounced the bit in 2019, for unspecified reasons, which might possibly have included a desire to protect the Wiki from vandalism were that account to be compromised. That would be a good thing for them to have done if so. Now they're back, and with no difference in their history to any other long-term semi-inactive admin, and they want their bit back. I see no moral or indeed policy reason under which this should be denied. The user did the right thing and is now being punished for it. Now one could well argue that the log-in-once-a-year model for retaining adminship is nowhere near sufficient, and that perhaps that should be tightened. Perhaps we should even have reconfirmation RfAs from time to time. But none of that is current policy, and it's unfair to be targeting one particular person when it's the policy itself which needs modification. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Levivich: Speaking generally (to avoid the question about whether a resignation is subject to the same considerations): our current "Wikipedia:List of administrators" reports as "active" any administrator who has made 30 or more edits in the last 2 months. After 30 edits within 2 months, I would have a hard time denying they had "returned to activity as an editor" if our own reports would categorize them as such immediately upon re-granting the permissions. Even if that page doesn't carry the strength of policy, it has been the de facto standard for over a decade.
It would probably be considered more socially acceptable for requestors to allow 60 days to pass and submit the 30 edits in advance, demonstrating resumed activity over time (and perhaps some "guidance" along these lines should be given - I understand that activity levels were left intentionally vague to give bureaucrats discretion, but this does not serve requestors well in practice as indicated by Jake Wartenberg below in re: to Dweller), but that is not a requirement: a good faith commitment to maintain this standard should also be sufficient on a plain reading of the policy. (@Barkeep49: who had also requested a discussion of a "bar" - no pun intended =) –xeno^talk 16:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno and ST. I fundamentally agree that additional guidance should be given by the community, because this isn't fair to either the requesting admin or the responding 'crats. If we want to institute minimum activity levels before a resysop, we should just institute minimum activity levels (like with specific numbers), rather than ask crats to do it for us (to quote myself from the 2019 RFC). Levivich 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Reconfirmation?

Thread retitled from "Reconfirmation".

I think there's sufficient disquiet in the community here to reject the standard re-sysop process and request a reconfirmation WP:RFA, which should be no problem at all of course if the community has confidence in the user. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is no reason to refuse this request. He has met all of the actual requirements and there is no "cloud".

Resysoping does not require the consensus of the community, it requires consensus of the 'crats. There is not standard of "disquiet" nor should their be. This is nothing less than demanding a WP:SHRUBBERY. Let the 'crats do their job. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right that there's no requirement for community consensus. I think the point here is that the community has raised sufficient issue. I appreciate your fervour to re-sysop this user who has made fewer than 250 edits in total in eight years, that's understood, but we're not just here to tick the box on the current approach to re-sysop. Sometimes it needs a deeper analysis, and this one seems like a good situation to ask, for a moment, "why?". Why would this user need to be an admin after 250 non-admin edits in 8 years? Why would this user be afraid of a re-confirmation RFA? Just normal questions. Not "absurd". But your position is clear, thank you! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I find it unlikely the community would support this editor in an RfC, but that isn't the point. There are numerous other admins who have the same type of editing history who also wouldn't probably survive an RfC but don't have to go through one because the rulez don't require it. I agree with you that we should ask "why?" but not with all this hullabaloo around a single editor. It should be via an agreed new policy which includes all quasi-inactive admins. — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry is this section about what the policy is, or what the policy should be? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Neither. It's about a summary of the current community feeling. Do you have a point? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm still confused ... why did you make a new section? I admit there is some need for clerking in the previous section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are you confused? Does it make a difference to you? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO, what is being asked of the 'crats here is this: 1. Go against community consensus and violate policy on resysop, and 2. IF there is a possible vagueness of " intends to return to activity as an editor.", then to ABF since Jake has said: I do intend to return to activity.[3]. It will be interesting to see what happens here. — Ched (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, "I do intend to..." and then? Why does this user need sysop rights? They meet the letter of the law, but what's the point now in 'crats if we just do this? We can remove 'crats altogether now, if it's just a mathematical issue. Get a CratBot to do this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You are trying to move the goal posts. The current standards are the results of countless pages of discussions. If you want to change those standards it is going to take a large community discussion and you are welcome to start one.

The current standard is only that "a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor"(emphasis added). The policy specifically calls out the mere intention. There is no consensus from the community that rumblings from a few users is enough to require an RfA for an admin in good standing.

As for taking this admin at their word I see no reason not to. This is not some unblock request from a user with a spotty history. This is a user with a history of working within the community norms. Why not take their word? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm highlighting that we're about to resysop someone who has made no contribution to Wikipedia in nearly eight years. I'm perversely entertained by the number of people who think ("BY PROCESS OR BE DAMNED!") this is good thing. Take a look at yourselves and the community of editors we serve. Unleashing an "old timer admin" is the worst thing we can do. If this user thinks they want to "become active" or whatever, let them do that for a bit, edit a few pages, contribute. Get them back up and running before they can cause untold damage with their "tools". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact remains that the process you refer to was created through extensive discussion and one of the first changes to the desysop policy made in about 100 attempts to succeed. This process should be respected. You seem to want to replace this hard earned consensus with some new idea. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not here to replace anything with anything else. Perhaps you're stretching. I'm just suggesting that sometimes BN needs some input from the community, regardless of your "100 attempts". I hope that you're not trying to shut down perfectly reasonable discussion. Wow. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

My 100 attempts? I think you misunderstand. I am saying countless attempts to change the desysoping policy failed before this one was finally accepted by the community. The current standards represent a huge amount of effort by the community. That should be respected. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It was quoting you. Wow. Sorry if that confused you. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I remember Jake and from what I remember he was a perfectly good admin. But I am somewhat leery about granting someone the tools back when they've hardly edited for 8 years. We've had at least a couple of issues recently with "old school" admins who hadn't used the tools much for a long time. I know this isn't what the policy says, but I'd really like to see a need for the tools here, other than "I promise to start editing again". Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
And this really is the nub of it. I've never even heard of "Jake" and I'm sure "he" is "all good" with current policies and norms etc, but perhaps they aren't and I don't understand why we would just happily sign off on re-sysopping someone who has made fewer than 250 edits to Wikipedia in the last 8 years. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TRM's statement for the most part, and I also note that this user has recently returned from being vanished, which also concerns me somewhat. However, I think this section has a misleading title as it makes it seem like TRM's comment has some authority. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck finding the policy where we can require a former admin to endure a reconfirmation RFA. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 01:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment. It seems like there is a fairly obvious compromise: just wait longer than 24 hours? If the user resumes normal editor activity, then sure, take the bit back with no need for reconfirmation. If the user only makes a few token edits in the next 2 weeks to a month, then they're essentially still inactive. While 24 hours is the normal hold, a long period of inactivity means that a slightly longer wait should not be considered an imposition. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed even if the 'crats decided that this admin was not active enough the solution is for them to become more active and try again. Nothing in practice or the wording or spirit of the policy demands a reconfirmation RfA. That is why my initial response was and remains that this is an absurd suggestion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I became inactive during my mom's illness and returned a couple of years after she died. I was desyssoped for inactivity and resyssoped when I was ready to come back. I went slow, gathered new information about what had changed, got some feedback, and reinvented myself. So Jake asked to have the bit removed as he was going away. Perfectly sensible to prevent hacking of an admin. Life changed and he decided to return. I have no problem with vanishing. Life changed. (I did not expect to return, either. The pull was irresistible.) So, there's no reason to suspect Jake won't do the same as I-- proceed with caution and welcome feedback and learn and grow. I think the Crats-- and it is their decision-- should give Jake the benefit of the doubt. There are plenty of people ready and able to help ease the transition. And let no one try to pretend RfA is an easy process today. It is not --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be well within policy for bureaucrats to pause a decision until they are reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. If the user wishes to preempt that process then they could apply for RfA. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

Per TonyBallioni and Barkeep49; the linked RfC was about developing a stricter criteria for restoration of administrator status after a desysop for inactivity. [emph. mine]. Any subordinate clause of the RfC is subject first to the bolded portion. It should not have affected the decision tree for restoration when the desysop was not for inactivity, so the policy should be corrected to bind the clause to the triggering event. –xeno^talk 00:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Although it ~~doesn't appear to~~^{probably shouldn't} apply to the instant case, "activity as an editor" is still undefined (and opinions vary widely as can be seen above). This probably should have been defined somewhat at the time of the RfC.

Do we use 1) metrics (5 edits in the last 30 days); 2) WP:LOAA (30 edits in the last 2 months); 3) the personal opinion of the processing bureaucrat (we differ widely in our own activity levels and opinion!); 4) a reasonable wikiperson's standard of activity (I do recall raising alarm if it were to be this - notice the vastly different suggestions for activity levels offered above), and if the final option: is it reasonable standards of activity for fresh candidates, or for occasional administrators with a decent body of past work demonstrating their efficacy? And now remember, even once we reach an agreement there, this has to be divined by the bureaucrats, so it becomes their personal assessment of what an average reasonable wikiperson (this is really an impossible construct) thinks, and then - if there's sufficient doubt (and is this doubt of the community, or doubt among the bureaucrats only?) - down to a consensus of the bureaucrats weighing in on this factor?! (At least we're aptly named!) –xeno^talk 00:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the intent of the proposal, TonyBallioni stated in his initial support statement I think we could trust our 'crats to use their judgement as to what is a reasonable standard to hold people to here. This leaves it up to the discretion of the bureaucrats to decide on the standard they feel reasonable to apply. I appreciate that in practice this will likely lead to a permissive standard for determining activity, in the absence of the community reaching an explicit consensus for a more restrictive approach. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(I'm not sure which thread this is). This is a much needed discussion. Bureaucrats should not be expected to be rubber stampers but to examine individual circumstances. I should also like to see an explanation for the multiple changes of user name. As I suggested at the start, a pause might be useful to see how things develop. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC).

I'm now considering the ramification of a policy (and the WP:BUR page) being "somewhat off" for almost 2 years, but having been enforced as written (erroneously?) in the interim. It was only rigorously tested a few times. There was some discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 42#RfC closure grants bureaucrats new discretion in processing resysopping requests. On review of requests following that, it does appear that bureaucrats and other users started at least mentioning the standard for what should have been unrelated requests (albeit sometimes jokingly). It appears to have been mentioned as a consideration in a query about eligibility and a blocker in a (withdrawn) request for re-sysop following a self-requested removal (another was declined in that archive, under another clause). In archive 44 (the case mentioned above), there was no consensus found to follow policy "as it should have been" [in the minds of some commenters] (e.g. with a grandfather clause). The present case is a bit different in that the entry didn't just forget to have a grandfather clause, it should have been attached to a particular cause but wasn't, and then started being followed as is. (To wrap up the re-sysop review, the most recent includes a most curious - and imho correct - decision to refuse an admin's resignation.)

Although policy is meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, it seems strange to keep a policy in place as is just because we've been following an inadvertent sentence structure error. In the meantime, I'd like to ask Jake Wartenberg for patience and Bureaucrat note: request for additional time for comments from other bureaucrats. –xeno^talk 02:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion on applying the new guidance—I'd forgotten about that thread. It's a lot like this discussion: some supported leaving it up to the bureaucrats to decide on what they think is reasonable indication of being an active editor, in order to allow for flexibility in interpreting the requester's actions and words. I think Risker was the only one who made (two) proposals for standards. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Xeno, thanks for putting up a section here. I've been carefully wording my responses here as I do my best not to say "as the drafter this means X" since the community can obviously not support my intent in a proposal and only the written policy matters at the end of the day. Bureaucrats should interpret the policy as written since that is what the community agreed on.

That being said, I will say that when I drafted this, I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined it to be interpreted this way. My assumption was that members of the community would not take an interpretation of policy that rewards gamesmanship as a backdoor to changing the actual inactivity criteria. Based on the context that the 1st WT:ADMIN RfC was proposed in (returning post-desyop admin) and the fact that to my knowledge, we've never actually had a discussion like this about someone who resigned before, I assumed it would be understood that this was referring to people who were actually desysoped for not meeting activity requirements. Having it be applied to resignations makes no sense: if someone knew this might be a result, they'd be disincentivized to hand in the tools when they were going through a period of inactivity. That'd work actively against the community's concern that inactive admins who aren't monitoring their account shouldn't have the tools for security reasons. It makes no sense.

Tl;dr: crats should interpret the policy as written and read the RfCs on their own and take my musings above as just any other community member; I think that the clause in question isn't applicable here because the context of the RfCs was about people who had actually been desysoped; and this case should not be precedent setting for what "intent to return to activity" means as that portion of the policy doesn't actually apply here (in my view.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the haphazard placing of my comment, but per the RfC, I really think we need to go into a crat chat. Have the policies outlined, and individual crats post their viewpoint and interpretation of policy. Right now as it stands, policy is far from black and white because of the wording on the desysop'd for inactivity vs. resignation, the fact that crats are given discretion to ensure an activity level before returning permissions and the fact that this is complicated by a vanishing which never would have been considered in the original RfC. The one part that definitely doesn't help me lean towards restoration is the lack of comment from Jake on the subject here, but just a generic handwave statement. Either way, there are still (at least) 3 key factors that should be considered by a full crat chat, and not a haphazard discussion. (Courtesy ping: @Xeno: for comment request from talkpage) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a section above. –xeno^talk 04:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

AmandaNP, I am not inclined to comment on the discussion surrounding the admin policy and 2019 RfC that is currently taking place, given that I have an obvious vested interest in a particular interpretation. Beyond this, I am not sure what else I can say to convince the bureaucrats that I intend to resume editing Wikipedia under my username, that I have not already. Can you clarify what you were expecting from me? Jake Wartenberg (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Jake Wartenberg Why not return to editing and then request the admin. toolset back after that? Instead of this wholly unnecessary kerfuffle to obtain trusted tools which you are unlikely to (know how) to use? Even assuming good faith, this just looks like a status thing. Leaky caldron (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think he won't know how to use these tools? He was an active admin for years. It is not exactly hard to review a policy before acting on it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat note: Jake Wartenberg, regardless of my interpretation of what policy says, it's clear that there are voices that are uncomfortable with the bare minimum activity levels you are at. Can I ask you to consider withdrawing this request, displaying for at least a few weeks the kind of activity you say you plan on having, and then returning here to be given the tools without so much criticism? Please ping me when you reply. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Dweller, I think that this is reasonable, and I am willing to withdraw my request. I would like to say that I was not expecting my request to be controversial, and that I think that expectation was reasonable, based on how the policy is currently written. I think that the policy language should more accurately reflect current practices. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  - Jake Wartenberg The fact that you failed to respond to my earlier identical suggestion but quickly deferred to a 'crat. says (to me) enough about your insensitivity and lack of concern for the general editorship to suggest that the time you intend to spend doing whatever you are planning to do in order to achieve a satisfactory level of re-familiarisation includes understanding the ordinary folk here. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    - Alternate theory: Maybe JW answered Dweller because he was polite, while you were being a jerk? Or because Dweller's comment was at the bottom, and JW didn't want to wade thru this quagmire hunting for all the people who said something vaguely similar, not realizing that if they didn't get a personal response it would hurt their feelings? Or maybe he was pinged about 20 times in this disorganized discussion, and lost track of who pinged who when? The only times I recall hearing your opinion is when you're assuming bad faith. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
    - LC, I don't think that's fair. They were pinged multiple times on this page. I don't think they should be expected to answer every one of them, especially when some (like yours and Dweller's) were essentially asking the same thing. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

<-Thank you, Jake Wartenberg. The request has been withdrawn, everybody. I'll archive this. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Enough, please

This is happening with almost every inactivity-related re-request of the tools now. If anyone objects to the inactivity requirements, they need to contribute to efforts to change them. Hassling anyone who makes a good-faith request to have their adminship restored in this manner is unfair when policy allows them to make such requests. We don't have a limited number of tools to give out nor is the position salaried; if we did, I'd understand the reaction every time, but that's not the case.

We shouldn't need to hold a bureaucrat chat for something that ought to be a routine procedure unless there's evidence of wrongdoing / an under-the-cloud resignation. If someone meets the current requirements to have their adminship restored, that adminship should be restored. Change the policy before, not during.

Change the system; don't blame the people operating fairly within it. Acalamari 07:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acalamari: I personally think that a 'crat chat (informal or not) is fine, it's under the ambit of determining how much is needed to be reasonably convinced. The wide interpretation was added since edge cases would come up and summarily accepting something that is purposely made discretionary (RfA discretionary ranges, anyone?) is certainly worse than having a discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The definition of "reasonably convinced" is the question. If 'crats think they can't decide that as a body, or if they decide it in a way that other editors don't support, we need an RfC. But maybe you can come to some decision that most editors will see as reasonable. (Cracking myself up again.) I do think Tony's argument that this was never intended to include resysops after voluntary relinquishment needs to be considered, too. —valereee (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we add the following text to WP:ADMIN?: "NEVER resign your tools if you don't plan to be very active in the future. If you do so, the activity requirements will be much more stringent than if you just type "hello" on your talk page every year." --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
(rimshot) I do think the vanishing makes a difference. That's not "I will not be active with the tools for a while" it is "I am leaving forever, period, lose my number." However, this scenario was not anticipated and therefore is not mentioned in the policy as written. In such a case I think the user should be encouraged to wait a while before asking for tools back (which I think we can safely say has been done at this point), but that's about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Flo, I get it. We let admins game the system. We shouldn't, but we have limited ability to change it because: wait, that could affect ME. Oppose. We have extremely limited ways to try to make this whole thing feel less unfair to non-sysops. This is one of the few we have in place. This is a morale issue, and I think it's an important one. And this editor, instead of gaming the system, did the right thing. I think they could continue to do the right thing. Just go edit for a few months, then request. That'll make everyone (cracking myself up again) happy. —valereee (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2021 (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 desysop (Protonk)

Protonk (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi folks,

I've been away so long that I find myself having to do a bit of reading before even contemplating using the tools for anything other than a trivial manner. I'd rather not have them available. I don't know if there's a way to formally enforce this, but I would prefer to seek the tools through an RFA in the future rather than request them here again. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, but hopefully someone else will remember I said this even if I forget after a few years. ;) Protonk (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Done @Protonk: while I doubt we would actively refuse your return if you used the BN option in the future, I don't see any reason the community would actually refuse an RfA request in the future, especially if you included such an explanation in the opening of it. Best regards and thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Protonk, Xaosflux has put a permalink to this desysop request on your user rights log page, so that may serve as a reminder of your request for the 'Crats not to restore the tools. If you do change your mind and request the tools back, you could just have them back, but if I understand you correctly, that is something you'd prefer not to happen. The problem for us is which Protonk we should be responding to: the Protonk at the time of the resysop request, or the Protonk at the time of the desysop request. The most we could do is remind you of this conversation, and leave the decision up to you. SilkTork (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We need more of this kind of self-aware ethic. Welcome back, I look forward to that RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. A request like this disposes me favorably to supporting your future RfA. —valereee (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I think the reminder will serve well enough. I need not be lashed to the mast. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As a long term critic of policy-enabled Admins returning after years with no more than a handful of edits to their name, this approach is most refreshing and welcome. There'll be no lashing from me ;) Leaky caldron (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Likewise. Better to resign the tools if you feel you can't responsibly use them than soldier on ahead and muck things up. I should know. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Desysop request (Wknight94)

Wknight94 (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 13:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#August 2021

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

Emperor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: April 2016

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the last admin action be bolded, as April 2016 is over five years ago?Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped" - So to respond, that's only part of the equation, so I would think, no. - jc37 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Jack is referring to the result of this RfC, where it was determined that administrators that had been desysopped for inactivity and had not used the tools in five years would not be eligible for restoration at this noticeboard. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and I think it is safe to assume the rule applies regardless of whether or not anything is in bold. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, font-weight is irrelevant. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the five years counts back from the date of request for resysop not from the date of desysopping, as such the non-bolding of last admin action may give a false confidence if bolding is seen as confirmation that a RfA would be needed, so best not to bold in order to be clear and neutral. SilkTork (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about next month (QEDKbot)

Bot has been retired and deflagged. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I see that next month an admin bot will possibly be desysopped. The bot's owner is an active admin in good standing. Has this come up before? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We had Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 44#Inactivity warning (Cydebot) back in January 2021. In that situation the owner requested the bot be desysopped before inactivity kicked in. We also had Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive 43#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2020#May 2020, where RonBot was desysopped due inactivity, but it turned out that the operator had died a year ago. Other than those two near misses (and a few other situations where the operator of a bot requested a desysop due to the one month warning), I can't recall any situation where a bot was desysopped due to inactivity while the operator was still active. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

QEDK said on their talk page that they have no intention of running the bot on here again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QEDK&oldid=1036614349 Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I left a request on the operator talk page to see if it can just be marked retired and deflagged now. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Bot has been retired and deflagged per operator request. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:12, 2 August 2021 (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 (Jake Wartenberg)

Resolved

Jake Wartenberg (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Please see my recent resysop request. I withdrew my request at the suggestion of several editors, so that I could spend some time editing before asking for the tools back. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Though it might feel right to grant this straightaway given that Jake Wartenberg has done what was asked by becoming active: Special:Contributions/Jake_Wartenberg, and it has been well more than 24 hours since the original request; the original request was closed via a withdrawal rather than suspended, so it would be appropriate to wait the standard 24 hours. SilkTork (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh certainly, minimum 24-hour hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone home? Shouldn't someone be addressing this by now? It has been over 3 days at this point. — Ched (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jake Wartenberg: Thank you for your patience and grace; those extra buttons should be showing now :) –xeno^talk 12:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#September 2021

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

Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: October 2016
Dppowell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: November 2017
Deathphoenix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: August 2020
Black Falcon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: August 2020

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I was really hoping Mark would return, but wish him well. — Ched (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a voluntary desysop for Alvestrand

It's been too long since I was an active Wikipedia administrator, and I don't see a high likelyhood that I'll come back to do administrative stuff in the near future. So please accept the return of my mop and broom; if things change to make active Wikipedia work more likely, I'll notify you again.

Convenience link: Alvestrand (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

Best of luck with the project! Alvestrand (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Desysop Request (Viridian Bovary)

Renamed user 7z42t3k8qj (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

This is a notice of the desysop of Renamed_user_7z42t3k8qj, formerly Viridian Bovary/Ashleyyoursmile. They have retired/vanished and have requested removal of their permissions. If necessary Cabayi and TheresNoTime can verify that this request was made in good faith. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I do, with much regret. Cabayi (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely crushing. Will be sorely missed. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 13:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Man, got adminship only in May... that's a real shame.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Will be missed. Much love. El_C 13:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a real shame. Happy trails whatever you're doing - you'll be missed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame. ✗plicit 13:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Shocked to see Ashley leave so soon. A fine sysop, will be sorely missed. Hope they return to editing at some point in the future. Java Hurricane 07:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest rename log: meta:Special:Redirect/logid/43047261, which references a non-public VTRS ticket. We recently had a came back from retired rename and asked for summary restoration case, so trying to document the public parts of this for easier research. (Ashleyyoursmile -> Viridian Bovary -> Renamed user 7z42t3k8qj)— xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Desysop log entry: Special:Redirect/logid/120976492 (which just references this discussion). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Xaosflux - does this mean they (Ashleyyoursmile) is asking to come back and have their username restored? — Ched (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  - I think by "recently has a came back from retired rename", Xaosflux was referring to the resysop request from July. DanCherek (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  (e/c) Ched, I think "has" was meant to be "had" and refers to Jake Wartenberg's resysop. Pahunkat (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  Yes, that, typo fixed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. I thought that the "renamed user [random string]" user names were meant to obscure or conceal the renamed user. Did I invent a policy in my head or is there a real one that says we not supposed to tie "renames user" to prior user names? Side point, I know, and I do wish VB/AYS well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly a I'm leaving and never coming back and don't want my old username in as many search results kinda of thing - renames are very public and it is trivial to match prior usernames of anyone that made any significant contributions. See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. The primary impact to general readers, etc is that your old username won't be in article history views now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider it a courtesy blanking rather than a deletion, or removing the city name rather than salting the earth. The idea is to make it less obvious which contributions a user made, even though all the contributions are still there with the old user name. When dealing with administration matters, such as a desysopping, then for reasons of clarity and record keeping, it is useful to note who we are dealing with. But if someone casually wanted to know which articles Viridian Bovary edited, they would find it hard to track that down without knowing the random name sting which replaced Viridian Bovary's name. They could track it down, but it would require a bit of knowledge and a bit of effort. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Sad news. Wishing them all the best, and hoping we may see them back here again at some point in the future. — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this is a loss. Ashley did so much good anti-vandalism work that they became a target for some particular vicious sockpuppet vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll add my regrets as well. I really appreciated the work she did. Best wishes in all you do Ashley. — Ched (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Sad to see another great admin go. I wish them luck with whatever is next. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 04:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion on harassment

Not looking for personal or private information, so please don't misread me ~ did we fail this user in some way, as a community? It seems almost tragic that things can travel so quickly from super-successful RfA to vanishing. I guess what i'm asking is, without reference to any situational specifics, is there something that we ~ I, myself ~ should be doing extra to prevent this happening with another? Lindsay^Hello 07:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the short answer to your questions, unfortunately, is "no". There are things that happen that we as a community, much as we would like it to be otherwise, have no control over. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not as sure. I saw some of the abuse that was directed at her and I've only seen stuff that nasty aimed at 3 or 4 other admins. A lot of it came before she became an admin but some afterward. Of course, the comments were revision deleted and the vandals blocked but that stuff has to wear on you over time. I'm not sure what else could have been done except to provide support to those people who are targeted, so they know we have their back. I should say that I don't know if this is why she chose to vanish but I often thanked her when she came to me to get some troll blocked because I knew what she had to put up with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point; we might not be able to stop drive-by harassment from happening, but we can make sure those affected are able to deal with it. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This is certainly worthy of further discussion elsewhere. Users who are being harassed should have the full support of admins, arbs, etc, but I have to say Liz's comments are news to me, I had no idea she was being subject to levels of harassment. Perhaps some new/better channels for reporting harassment are in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We display this at the top of the account creation form now, but it's relatively new. I certainly wish it been there when I created my account. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's not wrong, I can't help feeling that the prevailing attitude amongst functionaries and long-term editors of "it happens"/"nothing we can do"/"maybe you should have been more careful?" does not exactly discourage harassment. I don't know if there's anything we could have done for 7z42t3k8qj specifically, but we can work to improve the general atmosphere around here, so that people don't have to be afraid to link their Wikipedia editing to their real-life identity. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I wish to hell that I could get people to behave like adults on this bloody site, but for some godawful reason people feel the need to be utter asshats to others on the internet. It does happen, and there is practically nothing we can do to stop this sort of harassment (i.e. the drive-by variety that seems to have led to this departure); for every filter set up to block "bad words" someone finds a new way, language, or method of leaving nasty comments. That doesn't mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and lament the loss of good editors when they get harassed to the point of leaving.

For the record, I was trying to be minimalist in my original replies because I knew why she left and didn't feel it was appropriate to say, but since others have come to the same conclusion without direct contact from Viridian I feel that I can be a bit more vocal about it. Hell, I really only know the broad details, but I was most certainly not trying to downplay or trivialise what happened. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What could or should the community have done here? Was it ever brought to the community? If so, how did the community fail? I feel for this person if they were subjected to a harassment campaign, but I don't see how it's the community's fault. Don't we have a dedicated team of paid WMF employees on staff for exactly this reason? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing much the community as such could have done; the harassers in question are banned LTAs after all, determined to bypass whatever steps the community can take (filters, rangeblocks, etc.) for disrupting Wikipedia. As for the Foundation, I don't think they've done anything with substance about some of our worst vandals, like Grawp, and I doubt the WMF will do much about these LTAs either, serious as they are. I've been targetted by these LTAs as well, among others far worse, and can do nothing other than revert-war with them till someone blocks and revdels. It's really frustrating to deal with trolls all the time, it can certainly cause a burnout, among other things, and lead to a vanishing. I wish the WMF would do something, but they haven't done much for so long now that I suspect they won't do much now either. While the productive members of the community are doxxed and harassed into retirement, the WMF will work on the privacy of IPs without caring about the privacy of its long-term editors. Not that I think that IP masking should be stopped, but it is high time that the Foundation also cared about its editors' privacy as well. '' Java Hurricane 08:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, often they can not do anything. When I was subject of off-line harassment I reported it to the police, to my employer, and to the WMF. All of them replied, but none was able to do anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I have not been harassed as often as many of you, but, other than getting an account (if it is not an IP) blocked, there is little that can be done. When I was a fairly new editor, more than 15 years ago, I didn't know where to turn to get help without broadcasting the problem, which I didn't think was wise. More recently, I reported an on-WP death threat (from an IP) that I though came from a neighboring county to the WMF and the police. The police said they could do nothing unless there was a more concrete threat against me. If the WMF took any action, they didn't tell me. - Donald Albury 11:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Really sad to see this, and I hope that 7z42t3k8qj is able to resume editing at some point, either under this account or another. Privacy is listed as a legitimate use of alternate accounts, but I wonder if we might be able to somehow improve our process for this further to help with things like re-granting permissions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
There are two things that might have helped avoid this situation. First, there should be better tutorial advice regarding the perils of revealing personal information and regarding how to deal with vandals—it is not a game and scoring points off a disturbed person can have consequences. Second, IP and new-account edits might be severely curtailed. For example, consider this ANI report on abuse from Chilean IPs. Inspecting 186.11.0.0/17 shows various edits that are presumably good, but there is also a disturbed person who should be permanently disconnected from Wikipedia. How can that happen? Current thinking is that it can't happen and we have to suck it up. I'm coming to the view that we have to push the problem down the line and do courageous range blocks where required. Then pressure the WMF to at least inform the ISP about the problem (the ISP of course will ignore an abuse report but that is how society works—we pass the buck). Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps blackholing the ISP, if they are unwilling to enforce their AUP? They might ignore abuse@, but actual customers can result in great pressure. Speaking as someone whom was in charge of answering abuse@ emails for a major ISP in the past.

"After ongoing abuse originating from $ISP's network in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy for $ISP, and multiple emails to $ISP that have not been satisfactorily answered, we have no choice but to disallow edits originating from $ISP. If this block is affecting you, please contact your provider at $ISP_ADDRESS, and ask them to resolve the situation by contacting $WP_CONTACT." SQL ^{Query Me!} 09:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Wording like that would be a perfect block message. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It would require intestinal fortitude on the part of the community, as well as the WMF, and a team to deal with those contacts. SQL ^{Query Me!} 09:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how much extra intestinal fortitude is required; we regularly block all of TMobile in the USA, and I'm pretty sure the block I placed on a spamfarm covering most of Nigeria is still active. It's more a case of just doing it. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe de-admin Maury Markowitz?

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

I have little interest in the admin side of things, and honestly can't even recall why I RfAed so long ago (or even if I did?). In the 20 years I've been here I've used it maybe five times for actual admin-things.

On the downside, having the bit made me the target of Russian hackers who stole my account to post garbage, which in turn made me the target of nasty comments. I suspect removing the bit will lower the likelihood of that happening again.

However... one capability I use all the time is the ability to see and restore deleted edits/articles. Is that solely part of the admin bit, or can I gain that capability through a less powerful userright?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maury. The right you are talking about, Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages, is bundled in with admin rights: WP:MOPRIGHTS, and is not one of the rights you can request separately. Let us know if you still wish to go ahead and return the tool kit. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Enabling WP:2FA may be prudent. –xeno^talk 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is your RFA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Maury_Markowitz - you were nominated by User:UninvitedCompany. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

10 supports and 0 opposes, a veritable feast of participation there! Funny how things were in the old days... — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It was also a time where there were 12 RfAs a week. They were different times for sure as we were barely out of the "RfA over the email list" day and age. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well then I guess I would like to keep the bit for the time being. What would be the process of getting this capability separated out? Impossible or doable? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

{{noncrat comment}} (well, it should exist) My understanding is it's impossible, because the WMF has decreed somewhere that the ability to view deleted contributions requires a substantial community vetting process. The frequent use of the ability to view/restore deleted edits is a perfectly legit use of the admin toolkit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree here on appropriateness, almost no admin uses every component of the admin toolkit - "only" using a couple of them is not a problem that community has expressed a problem with for existing admins (for prospective admins it is a bit harder, as even if they declare they only want the kit for one reason that is not binding). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: {{nacmt|crat}} exists, but is a bit messy. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrgaz: what we need is a generic {{kibbitzer}} template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

eyeroll. I meant @Sdrqaz:. sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam Had a go at creating something similar: (

Peanut gallery comment)

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Maury Markowitz: thanks for the note, it is possible but is far from simple. Viewing deleted content (and being able to restore deleted content) requires going through an RfA or similar process to comply with some global rules; as such, a new community review process for anyone that wanted that would be needed (which could be using the current RfA process with ONLY asking for that access). As this requires a community review process for anyone new that would need this - traditionally the community has pushed back that it isn't worth the time to not just give out the full admin toolkit. The technical components for such a process are the easy part. It is likely that if a permission group included viewdelete/undelete - it would need to contain related permissions like delete/revision delete - so that such users could reverse anything they did wrong. The next steps if you really really want to go down that road would be to set up a page and workshop what this new group would include and the processes that it will involve, get some input likely from VPI - then run a RfC that is widely advertised and attended to get support for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone offer some insight as to why this is considered so high-security? I've yet to see anything particularily worrying in the deleted content - spam and vandalism, but mostly just insufficiently cited works. Am I missing a use case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and similar offenses are obvious situations. But in general, you won't want to end up in a WP:BEANS or Streisand effect situation where by deleting something you end up attracting attention to it. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted material might be defamatory or illegal (child abuse) or outing or serious copyright vio or possibly more. I guess that means access should be restricted as much as reasonable. I seem to recall a failed proposal that a "reviewer" or "researcher" right be created to allow approved people to do what they think is research by trawling deleted pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It exists, but on special grant from the WMF only. Btw, here is an ancient comment from Mike Godwin somewhat explaining the Foundation's position. The crux of it is (although I think the Foundation has been careful to avoid ever saying this explicitly), by having "deleted" materials still visible to 1,000+ people, most of whom haven't been vetted by the WMF, there's already a bit of a legal gray area when it comes to what counts as "publication" for the purposes of laws like defamation. That's why they are very opposed to expanding access further, and why OS has to exist (for cases where the pool of users with access needs to have a legal relationship with the Foundation... and then true database-level deletion for the worst of the worst). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: a major deletion use case is for copyright violations, and the additional legal gray areas Tamzin's alluded to above about WMF not making such works widely available. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: - we delete in order to remove material from public view for a whole bunch of reasons, some of which have significant legal implications. We grant trusted users access to that material on the understanding that they have some grasp of why it has been deleted so they don't do anything damaging to themselves, someone else, or Wikipedia. Be aware that the Foundation are these days reluctant to give financial aid to users or admins who face legal actions as a result of doing something inappropriate on Wikipedia, and they may seek damages against you if they themselves are sued because of an undeletion you made - you need to use common sense as well as your understanding of Wikipedia's rules and the law in general when undeleting material. Most undeletions are harmless, but you do need to double check the reason why something was deleted. Of all the tools you have, undeletion is the most significant, and the one most likely to trip up an unwary admin. SilkTork (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All of the above are true - but it is also true that we delete for lots of other reasons, totally mundane reasons. Those, in my experience, greatly outnumber the use-cases above. Literally, in every single case I have used the tool, the deletion was due to missing references in a stub-like article or advertizing-like posts, which nevertheless has some useful bits that can be rescued. While I don't argue that the above cases don't exist, and should have some protections, it seems like we have a baby/bathwater issue here. But I am clearly tilting at windmills, which is precisely why I don't use admin much, so I'll leave it at that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

JGHowes

User:JGHowes unfortunately needs to be desysopped [4]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Done with sympathies, and gratitude for their long and dedicated service to the project. –xeno^talk 16:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

You might want to undo your local block and request a global lock instead. See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Now as the admin bit was removed the block is no longer necessary. Anybody can request global lock.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#October 2021

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

Mindspillage (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: October 2014
JDoorjam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: January 2011
Brian0918 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: August 2014
Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: April 2017

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

MrDarcy

MrDarcy (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, I just got notice I'm about to be desysopped (desysop'd?) for inactivity. I agree with that, as I haven't been an active editor in years. However, I'm also locked out of my account completely (had 2FA, got a new phone, recovery codes have not worked for me) and wondered if I should request account deletion? The account is user:MrDarcy and you can email me through there to confirm. Thanks for any help. [REDACTED] 00:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Followed up at User talk:MrDarcy. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who helped me regain access to my account. I still believe I should turn in my keys, though. Is there a formal way to request that you remove my admin privileges? | Mr. Darcy talk 13:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to see you are back! That note is sufficient - done. Thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Resysop request (clpo13)

Clpo13 (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I've found myself with more free time to contribute to the project, so I'd like to request reinstatement of the admin tools, please. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 22:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User-requested desysop 16 December 2019, passes metrics. 24 hour hold for comment. Primefac (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see they've actually been piddling a bit here and there in the interim, so they are probably up to speed. Welcome back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been gnoming around here and there, but I'm looking forward to getting back into a more active role. clpo13_(talk) 18:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been almost 3 days; maybe we need another 'Crat? --Aardvark Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! clpo13_(talk) 19:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Please close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix ASAP, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Eostrix Blocked. Thanks

For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and 2021 RFA review

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#6A Binding recall criteria, there are several comments about what bureaucrats will or will not do regarding potential new adminship-related policies. I'm not sure how the bureaucrats as a group can come up with a statement, but could you try to do so? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears to have several components, at first glance I'm fine with some, but not others
1. Requiring us to maintain a private communications system - not a fan
2. Requiring us to approve of someone's self-proposed recall criteria - not a fan
3. Having a policy update that will make agreed recall criteria immutable - maybe (how does someone modify it later, run a new RfA?)
4. Having a policy update that allows us to act when measurable recall criteria are met - I'm fine with that part
5. Prescribing that recall removals preclude summary reinstatement - good there
6. Leaving more odd timing gaps (e.g. resignation timing around recall threats or actual recall?, can a recall be processed on an already resigned admin?) - seems messy
— xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I don't know that the crats need to do a statement as a group. Individual thoughts, as @Xaosflux has done, seem like they can be informative to participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts mirror Xaosflux's - I've started discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Crat comments on their role Worm^TT(talk) 09:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If an admin asks the 'Crats to remove their admin status because they feel that is appropriate to their personal recall criteria I'd have no problems doing so. Anything else is not really part of Crat business. If an RfA candidate puts forward a recall procedure as part of their RfA, it is up to individuals !voting in that RfA to decide if the criteria are appropriate - I don't see that as a Crat role. I see the Crat role as interpreting consensus after discussion, not forming consensus before discussion has taken place. I feel that all communication between Crats and about Crat business should be open. I don't see a place for private/secret discussions about Crat business. If the community create a policy which mandates recall and gives criteria, and then gives a process by which a community discussion can take place to decide if the criteria have been broken, I'd be comfortable closing such a discussion and acting upon the consensus. I would not be comfortable deciding by myself or with other Crats if the criteria have been broken. I don't see the Crats role as deciding who becomes an admin and who has failed as an admin. That role is either down to the community or to ArbCom. If the community come to the Crats to say that an admin has broken their recall criteria but are not resigning, I wouldn't desysop the admin - I would need a recall policy and a community process in which I see consensus to desysop first. SilkTork (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't recall the last time there was a serious argument as to whether an admin's recall criteria had been reached without them resigning. I'm sure it isn't something that happens as often as every couple of years. When it does happen or is alleged to have happened I would have thought that the logical body to rule on it is Arbcom. If Arbcom don't currently regard it as part of their remit then I'd suggest it be given to them. I accept that they are busy and we are not, but they are our elected community deadminship process and we are not. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with SilkTork and Xaosflux:
1. Requiring us to maintain a private communications system - We already decided to get rid of the one we had. I don't think there's anything we do that would require a private discussion venue.
2. Requiring us to approve of someone's self-proposed recall criteria - Nope. Any such criteria belong only to the person who claims them. No more applicability than any of the dozens of essays on the site.
3. Having a policy update that will make agreed recall criteria immutable - Pretty much nothing is immutable on Wikipedia. Community consensus can change.
4. Having a policy update that allows us to act when measurable recall criteria are met - I don't see any issues with this. 'Crats follow policy.
5. Prescribing that recall removals preclude summary reinstatement - This would seem to fit within the "under a cloud" part we already use.
6. Leaving more odd timing gaps (e.g. resignation timing around recall threats or actual recall?, can a recall be processed on an already resigned admin?) - Same as the above: this likely fits within "under a cloud", and would be handled as such.
Those are my thoughts. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Resysop request (Rettetast)

Closed per OP request. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:09, 11 November 2021 (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.

Rettetast (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Could I have my mop backP Will maybe get some time to do some housekeeping again if time permits. Rettetast (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Access was removed in July 2020, and last administrative action appears to be from April of 2017. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Rettetast. We have a standard 24 hours holding period for resysops. But I will say, you've made less than a dozen edits since 2017. Jumping back into adminship might not be a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what sort of housekeeping edits would you need the mop for that you wouldn't be able to do as an editor? That might shed a little more light as to why you need to re-sysop, given the above concerns. (Non-administrator comment)--WaltCip-(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like a more specific answer than "maybe get some time to do some housekeeping" to the question of whether "the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor." User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Something you may have missed in the last several years is that the community now prefers you return to active editing before asking for admin tools back, not in anticipation of maybe becoming active again. Technically you appear to meet the standards for having the tools returned, but it's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable if you go this route. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Off topic. SilkTork (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back. I hope you enjoy using your tools again, we could use some sysop help. As we have stopped promoting new sysops, we urgently need old sysops back. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We've done nothing of the sort. That is just inflammatory and misleading nonsense. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's misleading. We can always use admins, new or returning, who are knowledgeable on our current policies and community norms surrounding various admin tasks to assist with the heavy lifting. Asking a few questions to help determine the intent behind, and extent of, the return from a former admin who hasn't used the tools in over 4 years seems prudent. I don't think anyone intends any disrespect towards Rettetast whatsoever in asking a few follow-up questions to flesh out the request. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I exaggerated by less than a dozen per year. The level of distrust commonly displayed here towards returning volunteer colleagues makes me uncomfortable. Can't speak for other people. —Kusma (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess thanks are due at least to Kusma for publicizing their lack of cognizancy as to current practice. ——Serial 08:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(

Peanut gallery comment) I don't see the point of this sniping. Some are more sceptical of returning administrators and some are not. I hope you will make good use of the tools when you receive them, Rettetast, and all the best. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat note: The change referenced above holds that "Before restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor." Rettetast: Thank you for offering to pick the mop back up. Do you envision yourself making 30 edits within the next 60 days? –xeno^talk 22:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the "30 edits within the next 60 days" route for returning inactive admins. The 30 edits could be made in one day; however, I'd like them to be non-automated, non-minor, and non-trivial. And if the applicant only made ten edits - or one, but those edits were significant (over 1,000 words with cites to reliable sources, for example), then that also would satisfy me. Its not just the amount of edits, it's the clear intention and willingness to get back to work that would sway me. SilkTork (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

To you all. I am probably not going back to my active days of editing. I have been very busy IRL the last couple of years, but som more free time is coming my way. I have always enjoyed mostly general housekeeping task like cleanup, dealing with image licensing and doing the more obvious prod-deletions. The admin tools are especially useful for image license work. But its not a big deal. So if i dont meet the criteria thats ok. Rettetast (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you've found your way back to us in whatever capacity and hope you enjoy the time you do have here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That you don't meet the criteria right now, Rettetast, doesn't mean you won't meet the criteria once your free time has arrived. Once you have your free time, and you feel you have met the "returned to activity" aspect, then you can contact me (on my talkpage or by email) and I'll look at your contributions and let you know if your activity is appropriate, and you can officially apply here again. Shall we close this request until then? SilkTork (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

NP. just close this. Rettetast (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#November 2021

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

GermanJoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: October 2020
Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: September 2020
A Train (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: March 2020

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I miss BH. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Do we know anything about GermanJoe? His RfA was pretty recent (2019) and he seems to have abruptly stopped editing just over a year ago. I do hope he's alright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Voluntarily resigning my administrative permissions

Sanchom (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello, I haven't been doing much administrative work. As suggested by the message left by User:JJMC89 bot, I would like to voluntarily resign my administrative permissions. Sancho 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Epbr123

As an FYI to other crats, I've desysoped Epbr123 per this announcement. For what it's worth, I try to avoid using multiple hats like so, but I've not yet found a steward to lock the account so this solves some of the issues. Maxim_(talk) 02:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The account is locked now. For what it's worth, the "not yet found a steward" was more of a Maxim issue than a steward issue. :-/ Maxim_(talk) 03:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Kudos on the reaction time, which was impressive. Pretty sure WP:IAR applies to tool use in cases like this. In fact, that is kind of the purpose of IAR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO it should be permissible to for any crat to unilaterally desysop an account they believe to be compromised, so long as they immediately notify ArbCom afterwards. No need to wait. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

With the removal of the unblockself permission back in 2018 (see T150826), there shouldn't really be any need for that. The account can be blocked by any admin (even if the compromised account managed to block other admins since they can always block the one who blocked them) and ArbCom can then decide under WP:LEVEL1 which works quite fast anyways (the whole Epbr123 thing happened within a couple of hours while it was night here).Regards So Why 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

With the nature of Wikipedia's permissions, and probably the exact issues that Maxim mentions above, I believe it will always be a good idea to remove sysop from a blocked compromised admin as soon as possible. I remember confirming this the last time I was blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While this looks to be a somewhat random occurrence where they didn't even try to use the admin toolset, I tend to agree that an immediate desysop is the right move. Even while blocked they can still do things like view deleted material, and only users who have passed an RFA or equivalent process are permitted to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Could ArbCom "give" this right to crats after a private discussion/vote? If we have an RFC, then someone's going to say "what problem is this trying to solve?", at which point people will chime in, on a highly-attended page, with all the things blocked admins can do. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(

Peanut gallery comment) If you're referring to giving bureaucrats the permission to desysop administrators without having to wait for a Committee motion or having to rely on IAR, that would be a major change in policy – somehow, I suspect the community would not be receptive to the Committee making policy behind closed doors. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the case of compromised accounts. And obviously, ArbCom would always be able to overrule the crat and restore permissions, after the fact. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would upset people, but perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This would only apply in cases where a 'crat was aware there was an issue before the earlier of 3 arbs (see WP:LEVEL1) or a steward (who are explicitly permitted to use their tools in an emergency situation - see WP:GRP#Stewards), so the need is hardly urgent. I can see the benefit in explicitly allowing a crat to act on their own initiative in cases like this, and also to explicitly allow an arbitrator who is also a crat to wear both hats, however I don't see any reason why this couldn't or shouldn't be a community-led change.

FWIW, a quick search of the archives of this page suggests we average about 1 emergency desysop per year, with 1 each in 2018 and 2019, none in 2020, and 2 in 2021 (February and November). Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I kept some notes from the burst of compromised accounts in 2018 and 2019 and know of three admin accounts that were desysopped as compromised in 2019. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: to answer your question directly, no. The committee is not empowered to alter policy on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Block and process is generally OK. I think we have vary WP:IAR removed in a blatant takeover attempt at least once, but any 'crat would do so at their own risk. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree that this was a reasonable way to respond to a suspected compromise. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Resigning admin permissions

Hi, I haven't been doing admin work any more. I'd like to voluntarily give up my administrator flag. Happy to have contributed to the project! ›mysid (☎✎) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#December 2021

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

Ryan Norton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: July 2010
Kateshortforbob (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: December 2018
Wrp103 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: July 2008
Amalthea (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: December 2019

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Interface admin right reinstatement request (Mr. Stradivarius)

Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I would like to request interface admin rights, to fix cross-site scripting issues I have found in Wikipedia user scripts. In particular, I found an issue in one script that is imported by several active users, including those with checkuser, oversight and interface admin rights. I would like to fix this directly so as not to tip off potential attackers as to where the vulnerability is and how it can be exploited. I can provide details of the vulnerability privately by email if necessary. After fixing this, I plan on looking for and fixing security vulnerabilities I find in other user scripts. I have had interface admin rights before, and they were removed due to inactivity (not under a cloud). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Successful RfAs and Autopatrol

Hi crats. A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. This will be implemented the week of December 13th. When the change goes live, I will note it the Administrator's Noticeboard. The crats may want to keep autopatrol for any editors who have it when granting successful candidates sysop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thanks for the note, this is already the general guidance (we only remove userrights made redundant by the sysop flag) - so this will just be another one of those to leave in place. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Resign as administrator (Rifleman 82)

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.

Rifleman 82 (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi there

I don't spend much time here anymore. I'd like to resign as administrator. Thanks.

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's been done for you Rifleman 82. Thank you for your service to the community as an admin, and thank you for the community-spirited self-request for removal of the tools. SilkTork (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2021 (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.

Ihcoyc sysop flag

I am not sure if ArbCom needs to handle or not, but Ihcoyc has died and should probably have their admin flag removed. @David Gerard: was one to confirm this at User talk:Ihcoyc#Vale Ihcoyc --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@AmandaNP: Could you do the steward side of this? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The steward side has now been done; rest in peace. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Sotiale. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Could somebody please check this message (my FB account was disabled, and I can not see anything there), and, if it is confirmed (which would be very unfortunate) remove the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please see the above section. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the Sysop flag per David Gerard's report. My condolences to their friends and family. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The report was from Steve's sister posting on his Facebook, and he'd been ill for some time; sadly definite, I'd say - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Thank you. Sad day for the project. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Desysop request (Kirill Lokshin)

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

Thanks! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Service" is an understatement when it comes to Kirill's experience and history on this project.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I was about to just go ahead and add the autopatrolled bit as well, given his editing history, but thought better to just leave a note here. Due to changes in unbundling with sysop recently, he probably didn't have the separate bit, but obviously qualifies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: doesn't matter to me really - they could have self-assigned before resigning if they cared, but since they haven't created a new article in ~7 years it's prob not that important to them (no objection here though). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#January 2022

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

Nunh-huh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: September 2016

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Interface admin request (Galobtter)

Galobtter (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, could I be reassigned the interface admin flag. Got a bit of time to work on WP:SDH so it'd be useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Galobtter: are you currently enrolled for WP:2FA? — xaosflux ^Talk 06:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Done (no additional wait period as has previously held). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Periodic bureaucrat activity review

Hello all, FYI: a periodic review of bureaucrat activity has been performed. There are no inactive bureaucrats requiring action at this time. See the report for details. The next possible action will be in September this year. As there are no imminent removals, an exhaustive search for possible edits which could have earlier timestamps has not been completed. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (Cimon Avaro)

Cimon Avaro (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

This is me. I don't know what the current policies are. I cannot be an effective sysop. Remove my admin rights. It will be a blessing. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your long standing service (since 2003), and for self-requesting. I think we should create a special barnstar for admins who honourably request desysop after long service. SilkTork (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this. It shows, hopefully without patronizing this or similar admins, great character, honesty and self-reflection. ——Serial 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm heartened by this trend of admins acknowledging such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm seeing multiple of these, and I'm always impressed with the self-reflection. —valereee (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we have RfAs like his? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Cimon Avaro was the fifth admin to be appointed by the community under RfA: [5]. SilkTork (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

They were made an admin because they wanted to "stop thinking about the subject", and three others agreed. Happy days. — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Note of trivia. Cimon Avaro, your RfB was used by MBisanz in a rather difficult question in my RfB. I also thank you for your very long service. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (Euryalus)

Done

Am full-time with further studies and won't 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. All the best -- Euryalus (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Very considerate thinking!

Best of luck with your studies, hope to see you around again soon -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please come back when the pressure eases up, Euryalus. Good luck with your coursework. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with the studies Euryalus, hope you come back here afterwards. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Easily the single best arbitrator we've had while I've been on the project, and someone who has always been extremely kind to me, even when I was a no-name autoconfirmed user with an odd predilection for policy discussions and NPP. It's very easy to forget those who serve without want for acknowledgement, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't acknowledge them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the traits that Euryalus exudes go far beyond things related to arbcom. They are unmistakenly genuine and so character defining that I immediately knew on our first interaction that I was the fortunate one. I only hope they were able to receive the message I had sent some moments ago, before having seen this. Anyway, my thanks and well wishes are not misplaced. And they are sincere.--John Cline (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I always appreciate it when an admin shows the foresight to put down their tools and goes against the "admins will fight tooth and nail to keep their tools" or the "admins only do 1 edit a year to keep their tools" tropes. Of course, I expect nothing less from Euryalus, who was an excellent arb when I worked with him. I look forward to his return. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (Jehochman)

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

Hello, I have been an administrator for 14 years and have been thinking about retiring for the last year or two. I am not that active as an administrator and have not kept up with Wikipedia's expanding bureaucracy. I can be more helpful as an editor than as an administrator. For the avoidance of controversy, I want this resignation to be permanent, no resysop without a new RfA. That isn't going to happen any time in the next decade because I'm busy in real life. Afterwards, who knows. Also, may I please have rollback and any other goodies you give to experienced users?

I have a request for ArbCom. Please do not let concerns about me detract from your important work. I have requested arbitration over serious editing misconduct that has caused extensive damage to our articles related to The Holocaust in Poland. Please take care of the articles and ignore all the flak. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Done @Jehochman: removed, thank you for your prior service. I can't promise that every 'crat would refuse a reinstatement request - but I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to. is there any reason why a crat would deny a former admin the chance to stand at RFA, whether they are eligible for automatic restoration or not? The only reason I can think of why a former admin (who is not blocked or banned) would not be allowed to run at RFA would be if ArbCom had explicitly prevented it (~~I don't recall them ever having done so~~ which they have not done in many years) or set a time limit (which they haven't done in the last 6 years at least) that has not yet elapsed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(I have amended my comment after it was pointed out on my talk page that my recall was not perfect and a remedy to that effect was passed in 2006, but withdrawn in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC))

@Thryduulf: I'm not going to hunt them down - but have seen arguments forwarded that using RfA when BN request is available is waste of the community's time, so shouldn't be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen such arguments, and so don't know the reasoning behind them, but my first impression is that it's a not a definition of "wasting the community's time" that I agree with. This is probably not the venue to explore the issue further though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf:I think we're on the same page here - I don't think any 'crat would shut down an RfA with something like "Use BN" - my comment was that if other community members argued that RfA was inappropriate that I would oppose such an argument. Personally, I'd prefer RfA was the default venue for regaining sysop following removal for most reasons (notably short-term declared leaves of absence excepted) - but when acting at BN I follow the policy as it stands today and don't let that personal feeling get in my way of processing reinstatements here. If Jehochman actually asks for reinstatement here, I would not process it - but also wouldn't individually "decline" it, I would request further discussion. Hope that clears up any confusion! Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hope that clears up any confusion! it does indeed, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sad to see this, Jehochman. The project is sorely lacking in administrators. The number of successful RfAs per year is down to single digits, while the number of administrators resigning or leaving for inactivity is growing fast. I hope you reconsider your request and request resysop. Even if you rarely use the tools, we would all still benefit from that occasional use. I can see obvious shades of your recent ArbCom case request coloring this resignation, and I urge you to take heart that a sizable majority of editors and arbitrators do not support desysop; you have not lost the faith of the community. With all that being said, if you prefer to hang up your mop, of course, I respect that. Best wishes. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I can still help clear backlogs. I’ve got the page mover right. I can do non admin closures of things. User rights are trending towards unbundling, which is good. Moreover I recently identified a good RfA candidate. We just have to promote more often and we will be fine. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You reckon we're trending toward promoting more often, though? The failure of every substantive RfA reform doesn't fill me with confidence.

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regrettable. If I knew anything about the Holocaust in Poland, I'd quickly make corrections to that article, where required. I don't have email, so should a banned editor try to intimidate me? the best he could do would be entertain me. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Given there are currently sanctions being discussed at Arbcom (albeit opposed except an admonishment) I do see a potential cloud here, combined with Jehochman's decision for a new RfA, I would hope that it is a request that is respected.

Having said that, Jehochman didn't need to do this, and I for one would like to thank him for taking this step, which reflects well on both him and the project, allows him to carry as a valued member of our community.

Personally, I hope he does enjoy his time focussed on contributing as an editor, and when he has done for a couple of years he might come to me for an RfA nomination. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I do enjoy being a regular editor. Thank you for the offer, but the only reason I'd accept is if my requests for administrative services cause people to throw the toolbox at me and say, "Fix it yourself." If we need more admins, we can tap some fresh editors who are interested in doing good work and uninterested in power. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a name that makes me sit up and be respectful. Thank you for your hard work and wisdom down many years. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing while I'm here. Could somebody blast the second username on this list -> [6]. If you can't delete it, can you rename it to something humorous instead of threatening? Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I dropped a global hide request at Steward_requests/Global for that. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go as an admin. You've done a lot of good work over the years. I'm glad you're sticking around to do regular editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Aw thanks, but you won't miss me. I am going to keep helping figure things out, though somebody else will have to push the button. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (28bytes)

28bytes (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello bureaucrats. I would like to resume helping out with admin and 'crat tasks, assuming I am still eligible for a resysop and re-'crat. My request to turn in the tools can be found here. Also, now that Autopatrol has been unbundled from the admin flag, I would like that to request that flag as well, since I had it prior to running for administrator. (Again, assuming I am eligible.) Thanks for your consideration. 28bytes (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections here, just waiting the standard 24 hours. I note that Barkeep49 has already gone ahead and granted you autopatrolled. Great to have you back soon. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Very happy to see this; welcome back, 28b! --Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him · talk) 23:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - Kind of a shady character, part of the Pedro Cabal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm he has been at all the Pedro Cabal meetings I've attended. Even led us in the Secret Ceremony a couple of times. Shady indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No objection to +sysop, reviewing policy pages as we rarely get a re-crat request here in this sort of situation. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather see a new RfB due to the amount of time off, but that is just my opinion as a community member - with my crat hat on, no objections to +bureaucrat restoration as it is supported by policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, since his voluntary decrat request, he's been more active on the project than several current crats. I don't think there have been any major crat-related policy changes (if there are, it would probably take 2 minutes to point to them), so I'm guessing he's up to speed. It's not like he disappeared and then reappeared 2 years later. I mean, I know you said it was just your opinion, so I'm not trying to argue, so much as put a different community member opinion out there too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: I agree that 28b has been active, and have no policy reservations about this reinstatement request. I'm just not a fan of BN repromotion requests other than for short-term leaves, but that doesn't stop me from supporting that the community has an established policy and even personally processing such requests (example). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean ok, but you gotta run for arbcom again as part of the deal. I feel like I got robbed last time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Should 28bytes' request for the spanner and screwdriver back prove successful, he will be one of four (out of twenty) bureaucrats to have had their RfA pass in the 2010s. Only one passed their RfA in the last ten years. Food for thought. ( Peanut gallery comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Just so happy to see this request. Hope I'm onwiki later and beat the stampede to dust off my Crat tools. (If no serious objection emerges in the meantime). --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You're fortunate that I'll be asleep when the timer ticks over, otherwise you'd have to contend with the fastest OS in the West :-p Primefac (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I see no issues with either request. Glad to have you back 28Bytes. Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Meets policy. No objections to restoring admin and crat tools. Be good to have an experienced 'Crat back. SilkTork (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I see no policy-based reasons this request shouldn't be granted. And, as others have pointed out, there hasn't been any real change in 'crat-related policies. I support all of the requested tools being reinstated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@28bytes: Done bibliomaniac 1 5 23:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bibliomaniac15, and thanks everyone for the warm welcome! Time to do some mopping! Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-intadmin request (Evad37)

Evad37 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Requesting restoration of WP:INTADMIN rights in order to maintain the XFDcloser gadget. I have 2FA enabled on my account. - Evad37 [talk] 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Done This is a re-request, so no waiting period required. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request - AustralianRupert

AustralianRupert (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

G'day, I no longer wish to edit Wikipedia and, as such, request that I be desysopped. Thank you in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's done for you AustralianRupert. Thank you for your service as an admin, and thank you for handing back the mop in a responsible and community-aware fashion. I will make a special Barnstar for admins who responsibly resign when they feel they are no longer sufficiently active, and post it later. SilkTork (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the Barnstar I quickly made up.

		Job Done
		For good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner.

I'd be grateful if someone made it prettier. SilkTork (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer Job Well Done:

		Job Well Done
		For good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner.

― Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. the latter suggests a singular, particular job, whereas the former has overtones of finality.

A terminus.

Job and finish.

Le fin.

Signing out.

Punching off.

Sayonara.

Arriva derchi Roma.

Heyla Shayla See Ya Later.

DIEM CLAUSIT.

— SN54129 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hardly an admin
with a brain
can ever avoid
the drain
and strain
Burma-shave

--Bison X (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#February 2022

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

Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: October 2020
Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: January 2021
Saravask (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: February 2012
Jamesday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: July 2008

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Note this denied resysop request after inactivity and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2. Maybe he was doing something in real life? Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 00:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You would assume it would be something like that, otherwise it would be odd to go through RfA again only to stop editing after only four months. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request - BOZ

BOZ (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I would like to hand in my admin bit, effective immediately. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Appears to have stemmed from an editor complaint in Special:Diff/1069247970. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange that this would have just been a talk page comment, rather than an actual complaint. I'm not sure how having the admin bit has any effect on potential copyvios. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It was more than a talk page comment; Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/BOZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. That'll take some sorting out. Ignore me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Brookie

With sadness, I note that Marine 69-71 announced last month the passing of Brookie (talk · contribs), a registered editor for 17 years and an admin for all but the first 8 months of that span. Could a bureaucrat please take the necessary administrative actions? Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Done I've desysopped and filed a report for a global lock to the account at m:Steward requests/Global. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is very sad news to hear, and I hope that his family is okay. I took some text from both this discussion and the announcement, and I added a short entry here to the list of those we have lost over the years of this project's existence. Feel free to edit and expand, of course... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked users in user groups

Hi. I figure bureaucrats and admins watching this page probably have some spare time. Can someone please go through the blocked users in user groups (configuration) database report at your leisure and clean it out a bit? Thank you in advance. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDEFRIGHTS says no. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also several of these blocks are p-blocks or temporary. Removing the right for indeffed users seems quite pointless. CUPIDICAE💕 21:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. What's a p-block? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume partial block/page block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

MZMcBride It is incredibly unwise of you to undo a crats close of this beat-to-death topic that comes up every month. CUPIDICAE💕 01:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. This noticeboard is pretty vigorously archived for reasons I don't fully understand, so I don't see a recent discussion on this page. I briefly skimmed Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46 and didn't see a discussion about blocked users there. Am I missing one?

It seems rather peculiar that your response to multiple people raising the same topic is to be so hostile. If many users are independently raising the same issue, perhaps that's a sign. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat here. There's nothing "incredibly unwise" from starting this thread. Even if this topic were discussed "every month", which it isn't, MZMcBride is allowed to bring it up. We're not going to block him for starting a conversation that people aren't forced to contribute to. Acalamari 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Acalamari: I do think this is a bit of a "wrong venue" situation though; we bureaucrats would only need to be involved for bots, sysops, and intadmins. For bots, we normally will handle such issues at WP:BOTN, sysops need to go to arbcom, so that leaves intadmins which really belong at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. Thanks for the link. I'm fairly sure it was standard practice to remove user groups from blocked users on this wiki in the past. The page history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Blocked users in user groups provides pretty clear evidence of this. It also didn't take long to find a recent (February 11, 2022) example of this practice: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AMasterknighted>. I'm not sure the info page you linked to is accurate. Even in 2019, you can find plenty of examples such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&user=&page=User%3A6Packs&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=>.

While I don't really agree with the practice of removing rights from inactive users, this wiki adopted a fairly aggressive practice of doing so. In this context, it seems rather strange that indefinitely blocked users would retain access to the "abusefilter" user group, for example. Or browsing the current report, there's a user who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. It seems rather strange that we'd actively want that user to be part of the IP block exempt user group. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

They're blocked, they can't edit but they can appeal. And if that appeal is granted, their editing rights are re-instated. Unless you want every block to be a community discussion about removal of rights, this conversation is pointless. CUPIDICAE💕 02:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No need for hostility, MZMcBride isn't exactly a rookie. If they are blocked, and still have the abusefilter bit, obviously they can't edit but do they still have view access? Considering that is a pretty advanced bit, I can see potential for concern. Rollbacker, etc. not so much. Not picking sides, just asking questions, as an old admin here that hasn't asked them before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, nice to see you still active. :-) I did a quick query of users who are currently blocked who have had their rights modified since January 1, 2020. The results are at Special:Permalink/1071331802 and they're pretty rough. However, in this output, we can see recent examples such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Septrillion> or <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:GraniteSand> or <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Lazy_Maniik> or perhaps even <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Petruccio_Salema> that indicate that the practice of removing user rights from blocked users continues. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: may be interested to know about a recent thread at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions, where I pointed out that removal continues to be done on a case-by-case basis. Taking the case of the IPBE rights for someone blocked for copyvios, there is basically no correlation between the two, and I suspect there would be no reason to avoid restoring the right if they were unblocked. That IPBE is going to expire in a few months, thanks to our temporary-granting policy. However I may revisit and potentially remove some of the other IPBEs over the next couple of years to keep things up to date. And I think you're right it may be time to remove that instance of abusefilter group. It's one of those rights where being blocked has not always reliably prevented access. But a list of blocked rollbackers? meh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: to answer your technical question, yes: site-blocked administrators, abusefilter helpers, abusefilter managers can all still make use of their enhanced "view" rights. However, as we are not empowered to remove admins without arbcoms blessing, and any of our 861 admins can deal with the AF groups - I don't think this is something that bureaucrats need to handle. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Admin are less a worry since there are so few and Arb is pretty fast to act if one really goes off the reservation. Abusefilter helpers and abusefilter managers are likely rare in the block logs (same for admin), but it does make you wonder when it is appropriate to remove certain high value access bits. It is something to think about, but not something I'm familiar enough to give answers to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit filter rights are dealt with at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard and can be removed by admins so there is no need for 'crat involvement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

While I am not at all in favor of any kind of wholesale purge of user rights of blocked users, I would note that the very first report on the dbase list appears to be the one and only edit filter manager who is blocked, and that their many blocks are mostly related to their making mass changes in an irresponsible fashion. WP:EFM states "widespread disruption of the entire encyclopedia can easily occur—even unintentionally—with the smallest of mistakes in changing edit filters" so I do think there is a case to be made that this one specific user should have that one specific right revoked, even though they cannot currently use it excpet to look at things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Per zzuuzz (above), there is some question whether blocked editors with the abuse filter bits are truly prevented from using the bit. This may be under certain circumstances only, but regardless, it would seem prudent to update policy and make it fairly standard to remove that bit under most indef block situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Zzuuzz: currently, if you are siteblocked you are prevented from using (abusefilter-modify), you are not prevented from using (abusefilter-view-private) or (abusefilter-log-private). But as noted above, this is something any admin can deal with. If someone wants to lobby to remove someone's EFM flag, they are welcome to open a thread at WP:EFN. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the EFM flag. If anyone wants to discuss this at WP:EFN, we can do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Jonathunder

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

In accordance with an ArbCom motion (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jonathunder § Motion (February 2022), permalink with votes), please desysop Jonathunder.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Done bibliomaniac 1 5 21:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Biblio. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Request Re-Sysop (Ad Orientem)

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.

Ad Orientem (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

24 hr hold is understood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Last desysop was in September 2020 (request here), and was done voluntarily without a cloud. Ad Orientem has also been very active recently, so no concerns there. Besides the standard hold we should be clear to resysop. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Last sysop action September 2020, seems fine after standard 24hr hold. Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me. Respected admin who stressed out and needed a break. Welcome back. SilkTork (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ad Orientem!

El_C 10:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#March 2022

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

Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: February 2019
Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: September 2009
Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: March 2019

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, Ryan Postlethwaite, now there's a big name from the past. SilkTork (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Every few months a name pops up in this notification that makes me wish we had a Wikipedia version of "Where are they Now"?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, haven't seen Ryan's name around much over the last 5 or so years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think he nominated for admin a good number of the current 'Crats. He didn't nominate me, but he did support my RfA. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryan co-nominated me for admin, and both supported and opposed my RfB.Ryan Postlethwaite, if you're reading this ygm and thank you for many years of wisdom and excellent, thoughtful, kind-hearted contributions. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryan supported my second and successful run for adminship. As for Ponyo's suggestion; About a decade ago the WMF did a survey of former editors, it should be possible to try something similar for former admins, most of them seem to have an email set at the time of their desysop. It would be good to know what proprtion are just busy and might return in future decades. As for those who left because of particular on Wiki incidents, one wonders how many have checked to see if the concern they had at the time has been vindicated. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There's only a handful of Ryan's noms at User:Gmaxwell/adminship map; he'd look much more impressive if anyone would complete the map. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I found this: User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Adminship. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That adminship map is fascinating! I almost spit out my morning tea when I found my own name and learned that Runcorn was my great-grand-nominator... bibliomaniac 1 5 17:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It made me do my own map and I discovered HJ Mitchell nominated one of his own nominators so he's both my grandnominator and great-great-grand nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm my own grandnominator? ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just compiled my tree and there are some big names in it! Angela (self-nom) → Michael Snow → Fredrik → gadfium → Grutness → me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a "big name"? But there's only eight letters in it! :) Ryan's inactive to the point of desysopping? That's sad. I recall Sabine's Sunbird being a busy admin back in the day too. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I just found I'm only two degrees of separation from Ryan, who nominated Pedro, who nominated me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Guess that makes Runcorn my great-great-grand-nominator. Useight (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that data only goes to late 2007 and has gaps as well. My own chain of grand noms goes back into 2003 and includes people who passed RFA with 1,150 and 300 edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Link or it didn't happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've got me -> Kudpung -> HJ Mitchell -> Fastily (self nom) - only goes back to 2009. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My map goes back to Ryan as well via Dweller as well as The Rambling Man but that branch of the adminship family tree loops there because Dweller nommed TRM :'-D (me => Dweller => Ryan Postlethwaite => Majorly). Regards So Why 11:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel that if Ryan were to see this now he would be glad we were doing this bit, so in that spirit, here's how it looks for me (apparently?): Dihydrogen Monoxide -> Pedro (co-nomed by Ryan!) -> Dennis Brown -> Sam Walton -> NRP. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not Ryan :'( He was amazing when we were both new editors. Incredible guy, always kind to others, always kind to me. Did what he could to bring out the best in everyone. Acalamari 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Some very kind words above which I'm obviously very grateful for - Unfortunately real life does sometimes lead to significantly reduced time for Wikipedia (If only that pesky real life wasn't an issue, we might have finished this encyclopedia by now!). Interestingly though I do about once a year have a flurry of activity and use my admin actions (Closing AfDs, blocking vandals e.t.c.) so must have just missed the 12 month deadline here - I thought I was supposed to be emailed though on top of talk page messages? I haven't received any emails so I'm slightly confused. What's the process for getting the bit back for when I do find those 5 minutes to do some work? Thanks again all. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship, all you have to do is ask. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ryan Postlethwaite: The bot report at Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2022#March_2022 suggests that it did attempt to email you, perhaps it went to a spam/junk folder? There is no way to ensure that an attempted email is ever actually delivered, but it appears the bot email function is working with other editors. You may want to try to send yourself wikimail and see if it is working.

What Primefac said is procedurally correct, however with 5 contributions in the last 3 years, and 2 admin action in the last 6 years you may get challenged under the "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" requirement. My suggestion is that if you are ready to return to editing, return to editing - catch up on policy and practice changes that have occurred since your last regular adminining (seem like in 2013?) and perhaps read through back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS; then make a restoration request here. You also always have the other option to just open a request at WP:RFA, where standard community consensus can be measured. Best regards — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What User:Xaosflux says is correct, Ryan. We'd love to have you back as an admin, but the community consensus is that the return of admin tools has to come as part of being a regular contributing member of the project. The community has indicated that it is uncomfortable with admins only editing two or three times a year, as it is felt that this is not enough to keep up with community expectations. There have been a number of incidents in which largely inactive admins have made inappropriate admin actions which have caused controversy. If you made a request for the tools back, there would be a minimum 24 hour hold in which 'Crats would give their views, and the community would also join in - like a mini RfA. If you made such a request after spending at least a week making regular edits which indicated that you were returning to the community, the community (and 'Crats) would look more favourably on the request. If, however, you feel that real life wouldn't allow you to participate as much as the community expects for admins these days, then it may be best to accept that your involvement will just be the occasional article edit and talkpage chat. Closing AfDs or blocking users is not really a pressing concern - these do get done; indeed, admin backlogs are not as huge and pressing as general editor backlogs. See Wikipedia:Backlog. We have hundreds of thousands of editor backlogs, some going back to 2006. When you do get a little bit of time once or twice a year, then sorting out stuff on that editor backlog would be seen as hugely useful, and for that you don't need admin tools. SilkTork (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the good things I've heard about Ryan despite never directly interacted with him certainly suggests he should simply try asking for the tools back, and in the worst case, write a few GAs and file another RfA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Geschichte

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

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that Geschichte is to be desysopped. Please remove their sysop right at your convenience. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm saddened that it has come to this, and I'm the one that filed the Arb case. I was hoping he would simply participate, get a wake up call, an admonishment, and he would tread a bit lighter in the future. Maybe read up a bit on admin expectations, since he seems to be out of step with the community. But he refused to participate, even while editing other areas of the Wiki and other language Wikis. It just doesn't make sense, but the end result is what it is, and could not have been any other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, he can still request the case be opened and potentially regain his mop. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
This is true, and I'm not against it. I want admin to be responsive and responsible, this is extremely important to deflate the whole "super-editor" myth, which isn't completely without evidence. When one admin refuses to be accountable, it hurts all admin, which hurts the whole community. Mistakes are inevitable, even poor judgement every now and then. Almost unavoidable. Accountability, however, is a choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (MJCdetroit)

As there was a lengthy period of non-use of administrator tools coupled with the total inactivity situation, this request has been declined in accordance with the administrator policy. MJCdetroit is welcome to request administrator permissions via WP:RFA at any time. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:18, 17 March 2022 (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.

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

Please restore my administrator rights. It was stripped due to inactivity. I was inactive due to the nature of my work and location. Thank. —MJCdetroit ^{(tell me)} 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Rights removed May 2021, with last admin action April 2019. Numerically not an issue, starting 24 hour hold for comment. Worth noting that this is their only edit so far in 2022, and the last time their monthly edit count was over 30 was in 2011. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The last purely administrative action I can see was in January 2013. The April 2019 action was something any reviewer could've done. (

Peanut gallery comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Thanks for doing the digging. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJCdetroit Assuming that you meet the numerical requirements to be resysopped, which we will discuss, our policy has a specific requirement on bureaucrat judgement on your return to activity. Simply, it should not happen if [a] bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Given that your last 50 edits go back 5 years, I'm certainly not currently convinced that you are likely to return to activity. I'd appreciate your comments on what you see activity looking like. Alternatively, I would recommend withdrawing this request and spending some a few months returning to activity as an editor before requesting it again. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

~~Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)~~

Agree with above, and recommend User:MJCdetroit also read the comments above regarding Ryan Postlethwaite. The community these days expect admins to be more engaged with the project than the occasional edit, and the longer the period of minor activity, the longer the period of up to date engagement would be needed to restore confidence. If you're unsure what to do, see Wikipedia:Backlog, which has hundreds of thousands of articles that require attention and don't need admin tools to fix. Another option open to you is to apply to the community via WP:RfA, though without sufficient recent edits that is unlikely to be successful. SilkTork (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Dittos to Worm. It isn't a matter of math, it's a matter of the community being very cool to the idea of admin regaining the bits without actually using them often enough to understand changing norms and expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline due to no admin edits within the past five years per Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship: "In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request." SilkTork (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If the other 'Crats agree that there have been no logged admin edits in the past five years, then - even with renewed activity - we would not be able to restore the tools, and User:MJCdetroit would need to go through a WP:RfA. SilkTork (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was going off the report I linked initially, which incorrectly lists the last administrative action as being performed in 2019. Sdrqaz seems to have it correct that it was actually 2013, making MJC ineligible for a non-RFA resysop. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrative actions can be a bit of a grey area, as MJCdetroit had the tool as an administrator so I think there is plausible discretion there. However, given the significant time scale, and my statement regarding return to activity, I would certainly be recommending a fresh RfA in this situation and as I've said, I'd be unwilling to re-sysop. Worm^TT(talk) 13:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That bot report is "any action", even a "thanks" - not necessarily "administrative actions", as the inactivity removal process allows for any action or edit annually. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my past contributions speak for themselves; thousands of pages use the templates {{Infobox Settlement}} and {{Convert}}. I have/had never abused my position my an administrator. I see no reason to punish someone because they do not use a particular tool often or because they have been to or lived in places where water is the priority and not an internet signal.

I have seen how in-fighting, biases, and edit-warring have destroyed what was once a nice place to contribute to. This has disenfranchised many from even bothering to log on to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be beneficial that more trusted people have the tools when need arises then only a select few? —MJCdetroit ^{(tell me)} 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a punishment, it is our rules for regaining the mop after losing it for being inactive. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJCdetroit I for one would welcome you back with open arms - as an editor. Were you able to manage a period of activity, I'd even nominate you for adminship myself. However, the community has made clear through a number of RfCs that legacy administrators who keep the tools and use them infrequently are actually a net negative - they inflate the number of administrators and they can sometimes be unfamiliar with current policy and cause significant upset when they enact their faulty understanding. For these reason, the community has implemented a inactivity requirements. You've made the case that Wikipedia of today is different to Wikipedia of the past - our administrators should reflect that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wouldn't it be beneficial that more trusted people have the tools when need arises then only a select few?" Absolutely, and if you know of a way of doing that doesn't result in "Oppose, not enough edits to AIV", "Oppose, no GAs", "Oppose, too many edits to ANI", "Oppose, never contributed to UAA" or "Oppose, works in Indian Politics - oh noes!" I'm all ears. Seriously. Regarding, "I have seen how in-fighting, biases, and edit-warring have destroyed what was once a nice place to contribute to", others might say "I have seen how trumped up civility blocks, IRC discussions and admin tag teaming have destroyed what was once a nice place to contribute to" (note, I'm not saying you have done this at all, but consider this and this). You need to look at all viewpoints to understand why the standards required for adminship have risen greatly in the last decade. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be beneficial for more trusted people to have the tools. Yes. Absolutely. This is why I work hard to find candidates to nominate for RfA and tried, and failed, to reform RfA last year. But when someone is inactive the community's trust in that person lessens. Likewise the social ties and bonds, which sustain our community, weakens in that person as well. This, in my view, is why we've ended up with a string of ArbCom case requests from someone who did something that wouldn't normally rise to the level of ArbCom but did after they failed to engage after concerns were expressed. The trust in that user was low enough that people weren't willing to let something slide, and for the admin the connection to the community was low enough that the hassle of dealing with complaints wasn't worth it (though fortunately 1 of the 3 re-engaged enough that we didn't need to desysop them).

On a more personal level, I have no idea who you are. Maybe you know who I am, but the odds are you don't know who I am either despite the fact that I'm a fairly visible editor. So our mutual trust is going to be quite different than the trust I have with everyone else who has commented in this thread (and as of this posting I mean literally every other editor) - all of whom I've worked with directly or at least know of because I've seen them around. So your past work doesn't tell me how you'd be as a sysop now, just as my past work doesn't really inform you how I am as a sysop. There are so many ways an interested editor can help our encyclopedia and so if someone spends a few months doing that, and then says "I didn't abuse the tools in the past, can I have them again" that's a great indicator that I should indeed still trust them. Which is why I nominated someone who had been desysopped for inactivity after only 3 months of continuous activity post-return (versus the 12 or more people who have never had sysop are expected to have going into RfA). In my view a returning former admin taking a few months for to learn how to trust the community again and for the community to learn to trust them isn't a punishment, it's a commitment to a collaborative positive environment to enhance the world's knowledge (which is ultimately why I'm here). I hope you'll stick around and that we'll have the chance to build up that mutual trust together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Like Barkeep49, I have done a lot of work looking for RfA candidates, sometimes together. However, I do note that it's been almost a year since I've nominated someone now and I can't think of anyone that I can start preparing a nomination for right now. Part of the problem, as I've outlined here, is that administrators need to be trusted by all good faith editors, and the qualities that people want admins to be is so diverse, it takes a very high standard to get a broad agreement. I can think of two editors who are so trustworthy I would let them look after my children, but neither has sufficient experience in the maintenance areas required from other voters, that either they wouldn't pass RfA, or they would baulk at complaints about lack of AIV edits.

I haven't directly interacted with MJCdetroit, but from a quick perusal through their talk archives, it seems we have a mutual colleague in Dr. Blofeld, so I assume he's a good editor. Ultimately, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and as long as you make improving and maintaining the encyclopedia your primary goal, adminship can just happen as a matter of course. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat note: I'm in the "decline" camp as far as summary restoration goes, due to no admin actions since 2013. @MJCdetroit: as far as your statement that "I think my past contributions speak for themselves", that very well may be so, and you can get community confirmation of that at WP:RFA. In the interim, I've added the "template editor" flag to your account, so that you can resume maintaining templates that you have worked on before.— xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: I agree with the other 'crats here: it's been too long since any use of administrative tools, and other activity has been extremely sparse. Per the current policies, you will need to go through a new RFA. I support Xaosflux in adding the template editor flag, however. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: Agree with the above Crats. But, @MJCdetroit: ([7]) I think you're right, this is a less happy place than it once was (see my signature!) and while I'm not comfortable with some of the language and measures the community has taken with regard to admins, I think it's a reasonable concern to say that someone who has not used the tools in a decade may no longer have a good command of how we currently work on Wikipedia. So I understand why consensus formed around this new policy which means we can't return your tools. To take just one example, our approach to WP:BLP is immeasurably different now compared to then.

If you're interested in contributing regularly again, I for one would hugely welcome it. You seem like a lovely, clueful chap. A few months of regular editing and I would be happy to nominate you at RfA and I hope I'm not being a fool by saying I think your nom would be very successful. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Might be an idea to ask them to review the userboxes they have created: User:MJCdetroit/Userboxes; even if the intention was to be ironic or humorous, they are provocative and in dubious taste, and they would likely be brought up in an RfA. Indeed, I think they might fail WP:UBCR and could (should?) be deleted. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Guy who came up with the five-year rule note This seems pretty clearly to be covered by that rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I caused the 24 hour hold because of an admin I bought to Arb, do I get some credit, too? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:40, 16 March 2022 (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 comment on administrator activity levels

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

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

Worm^TT(talk) 19:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please also see the alternate proposal here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Question on resysop requests

Hello! I've just returned from a few years of life and am hoping to pick back up on my activities here. I was desysopped due to inactivity, and I fully acknowledge I'm beyond the five year mark so intend to, once I've refreshed my memory, written some content, and refamiliarized myself with things here, engage in another RfA. I'm wondering if you folks might be able to point to any successful RfAs that followed a period of inactivity? I'd like to get a feeling for what the community wants to see from admins returning to activity and work towards meeting those goals as I get back to it. Thank you! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tony Fox. The most recent RfAs after inactivity is Jackmcbarn. Going back before that you're at 2015 (Abecedare & Opabinia regalis) - if you'd like a nomination, once you've put a few month in getting back up to speed, give me a shout :) Worm^TT(talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll definitely touch base. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Tony Fox, I vaguely remember you, but I think you will find that many of us will be extraordinarily supportive of a past admin running RFA if there aren't any past issues. We need good admin, and there are some advantages to having an admin with experience, IF they are up on current expectations and policy. 3-6 months of active editing would be expected before running again, at least from me. Things have changed a lot. Not rocket science, but consensus has shifted on several issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Yes, I've been finding many new things to wrap my head around since I came back; draft space is interesting, certainly, and there are many other small things I'm catching along the way. My goal is to do what I've done in the past: vandal patrol, content creation and discussion, and mediating discussions and disputes as best I can, learning all the while, until I feel I'm ready to step back up. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a page that might help returning admins catch up on key policy changes? Might be hard to curate what is 'key' I suppose. For me, the biggest difference is how strict we are about WP:BLP now. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Well WP:Admin newsletter is useful reading material, but not everything that is needed. Gradual culture changes are hard to notice when your part of them, so something written by someone who has had time away and returned would be good for that aspect (and interesting for those of us who haven't I suspect!). Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another issue is that what is important is changing. WP:ACPERM totally changed the way new pages come in, and now CAT:CSD patrol is a lot less busy than it used to, changing at least my admin work quite a bit. There are far more professional WP:COI accounts writing now than ten years ago, but when talking about them you need to be careful about our much stricter WP:OUTING rules. There is now a stronger emphasis on admin accountability; if you make a bad block and then disappear, you can be desysopped even if the original mistake was completely forgivable.

Some decades old general non-admin cultural things may also be shifting: there is less and less appetite for controversy on the Main Page and not a large "no censorship" crowd to counter this. The Fair Use wars are long over, and acceptance for non-free images seems to be generally large and possibly growing. Policies are seen as more set in stone than back when they were just codifications of current practice, and bold edits to guideline pages are usually reverted independent of their merits, just because people expect things to be discussed first (in many places, the wiki approach is slowly being replaced by more bureaucracy). —Kusma (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No user can do very wrong if he places his bookmark alongside Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. SilkTork (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators#Major policy changes affecting administrator conduct might be a good page to record some of these shifts. There appears to be a partial list there already. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent resource, thank you! I've seen a number of things that I hadn't considered just browsing quickly through those links. Definitely a great reference point to start from. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Great resource, and I created a shortcut for it. It need a section on changes to BLP. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#April 2022

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

Grue (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: March 2011
Fribbler (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: January 2021
West.andrew.g (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: January 2015
David.Monniaux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last admin action: December 2011

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (Husond)

Husond (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, can I please be resysopped? I forgot my password a couple of years ago - which in turn distanced me from WP - but I just remembered it and managed to log back in. I would like to resume my Wikipedia activities. Thanks. Hús ö nd 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I very much suspect I know the answer to this one, which will be "please be more active before requesting", but I will leave this open for other comment; barely meets the technical requirements for reinstatement, unless I have missed something. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That "back" is doing quite a lot of work there :) SN54129 13:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I've posted here, but I'm genuinely puzzled by the forgotten password remark. If you look at the link just above in the comment by Serial Number 54129, there are edits in every one of the last 11 years, except 2021... --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, Husond is my great-great-great-great-grandnominator and my great-great-great-great-great-grandnominator – see User:Sdrqaz/tree. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat note:I am not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. With 1 admin action in 7 years, and last 25 edits spanning about 5 years - you do not yet seem active. Even if there was a credential issue between April 2020 and now, the functional inactivity certainly precedes that. I suggest you return to editing, catch up on updates, and perhaps re-request in a couple of months. The community expectations for administrator participation evolve over time, you may want to look through this running RFC for feedback. You may of course file a request at WP:RFA at any time. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was mulling going back to vandal patrol, which I found quite relaxing back in the days - and the mop is obviously quite useful for that. But I suppose I can take it easy. A lot has changed while I was away, and I may need to update myself and find my way around again. :-) Hús ö nd 14:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Not done per the bureaucrat comments above, and what I am interpreting to be a willingness by Husond to refresh and re-engage for a while before re-requesting the admin bits back. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Administrator note I added rollbacker and pending changes review flags to jump-start the return to "vandal patrol" mentioned above. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Super! Thanks. Hús ö nd 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (Kpjas)

Regrettably, I feel obliged to ask you for a voluntary desysop of my English Wikipedia account. I admit that for a quite a long time I have not been able to be stay active in this respect. I sincerely hope to be of use to the English Wikipedia community as my time allows. Kpjas (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. If there are any perms you need (PGM, rollback, etc) let us know. Primefac (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

For your past services, and for voluntarily requesting desysop, you are entitled to this award:

		Job Done
		For good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done. SilkTork (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for all you have done in the past, and for being wise enough to know when to hand in the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator inactivity requirements

Hello all. Please note that following the consensus established at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, an additional minimum activity requirement for administrators has been introduced: 100 edits within 5 years. Enforcement on this will begin in January 2023. This does not specifically apply to bureaucrats, but perhaps it should. There are currently crat+admins that would have admin removed if this were effective today - but would still be crats. Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see it applied to crat user right too - but the, I proposed the requirement in the first place. There is clear community consensus on it this for admins, so I struggle to see why we wouldn't apply at least the same for crats. Worm^TT(talk) 14:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should adopt it as an additional requirement to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it even suitable for a crat to not be an admin? If not, then the requirements are implied by proxy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski being an admin is not a polioy requirement to be crat. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it should but sadly I think it would take another RFC. I think whoever proposes new inactivity requirements should write bureaucrats into the initial proposal so we don't have these issues. --Rs chen 7754 18:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorta, the "administrator policy" is much firmer than the bureaucrat information page - so yes a discussion should be had, but I doubt it will be as attended for this matter. Wanted to drop this open for any feedback here first. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think any RFC on the subject should solidify the obvious, that a Crat must be an admin. If you lose the admin bit, you automatically lose the Crat bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not 100% obvious, since User:28bytes was a crat for quite a while without being an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Xeno is another example.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe giving up both bits should be obvious, and being able to restore the Crat bit using the same criteria as admin if they are given up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It would solve a lot of these problems and some WMF wikis do that. Though I think some RFCs here proposing that have failed. (Though I suppose one could try again, I don't think this inactivity RFC would have passed just a few years ago). --Rs chen 7754 00:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Being a Crat is not the same as being an Admin, so I'm not seeing that a requirement that if a user gives up the Admin tools they should also give up the Crat tools is appropriate. However, yes, the activity requirements should be at least the same, if not greater, for Crats. We need a RfC for this - it doesn't need to be well attended as it's common sense and uncontroversial; all that's needed is a consensus, which I'm sure it will get. User talk:Worm That Turned, as you started this, it would be appropriate if you finished it off; would you set up the RfC? SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If it really will be uncontroversial I will note that Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes doesn't require formal RfCs to change policy, though I certainly understand why one is desired here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a big advocate of being bold and moving forward, though on the question of removing Crat rights I think it would make sense to have a little more formality and community awareness than just a handful of us saying that we think it's a good idea. We could have the RfC on this page as a continuation of this discussion. I don't think that many people will get involved, but as long as it is advertised on Cent, then the community would have been alerted. If Worm hasn't started the RfC by tomorrow, then I'll set it up. SilkTork (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather away from my computer for the Easter weekend - happy to set on up when I get back, but also happy for you to go ahead and do one Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The email notifications for administrator inactivity are no longer needed. Should the email notifications for bureaucrat inactivity also be dropped? Could this be added as an option on the RFC? -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've created the RfC below. I've suggested that we stay in line with Administrator activity requirement for bureaucrats, which would include notification levels. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a list or count of the individuals affected? Uninvited Company 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you sort this table by "100 edits go back to," it's everyone with that field in red. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Of these users, the only one who is a Bureaucrat is Cecropia. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There aren't enough bureaucrats to care about a rule for bureaucrat inactivity. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If the reasons behind this are what I think they are; we don't want important decisions to be taken by people who have drifted so far from the community that they are out of touch with things that have changed; or they have forgotten things they haven't been involved in for years; or their account has been compromised; Then I think it logical that the community would expect crats to be held to at least as high a standard as admins. Prior to the Universal Code of Conduct I'd also have argued that with a growing number of very elderly editors we also need to diplomatically retire admins and crats before dementia gets too bad, but obviously nowadays we are no longer allowed to use such arguments due to the mental bit of "without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities". Ϣere SpielChequers 06:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We could just say that the requirements for Crat are the same for admin, so as changes get made for admin, they automatically apply to crats. That is a pretty lenient set of requirements. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure about that, but that the new additional sysop inactivity rule also applies to crats should be easy enough. We already require crats to actually do a tiny bit of crating from time to time - we don't require admins to actually admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

This has been completed. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:25, 16 April 2022 (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.

The RfC specified that all administrators be notified of the change which I'm happy to do via MMS. It also specifies proactive notice for people subject to the new requirement. Xaosflux are you able to incorporate that into the notification work you already do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: lets follow up at Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)/Request_for_comment_on_administrator_activity_requirements#Closing_-_anything_extra - because the closing didn't endorse everything that was discussed, only the threshold so far. We certainly will work it in to the bots though, lets just be very clear. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (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.