Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:21:14 on November 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Dissolution of the English-language Wikipedia Bureaucrat position

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 have a simple question. Is the position of 'crat here needed any more? We do a couple of things:

• Promote/decline RFAs.
• Name changes.
• Other rights changes.

In response:

• We have few RFAs, very few (perhaps a handful a year) that hit the "dubious zone" of around 70 to 80%. Besides the right to flip the flag, these could almost always be handled by admins. The dubious zone could be sorted by admins/Arbcom.
• Name changes are almost invariably a sanity check. Already we have clerks and bots doing 99% of the work. To be a 'crat to decide on most of these decisions seems unnecessary. Admins could easily say "yes" or "no" to these requests where required.
• Resysops etc, as noted above, has been declared by the community as something 'crats cannot be trusted with, now having to wait 24 hours before allowing their decisions to be enacted.

It strikes me now that we could fulfil all 'crat functions via admins and Arbcom where required. I would be grateful to hear from someone who felt that a 'crat decision in the past twelve months actually meant something outside of that which would be easily actionable by an admin, by Arbcom or by community consensus. This is absolutely not to suggest that the 'crats who have worked their socks off in the last few years haven't done a good job, it's merely to suggest they could have been doing something better with their time since the position of English Wikipedian Bureaucrat is now really not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering that many RfBs have been closed as unsuccessful in the past, I would consider that the community believes that these three things above do require extra responsibility, meaning that the 'crat bit is needed. For example, with name changes. Despite the clerks and bots, the decision to be made by bureaucrats would still be required, for example if the bot or another person "got it wrong." Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think unsuccessful RfBs are usually down to ugly partisanship, an unbelievably high bar set in mythology rather than reality and a refusal to accept that the ability to change someone's name isn't really that big a deal. Especially when Arbcom or stewards can run roughshod over anything local 'crats do, and particularly in light of our local community deciding 'crats aren't capable of re-sysoping admins without allowing a 24-hour period of grace. The position of 'crat has been serious undermined. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have focussed primarily on name changes in your argument, it feels to me like you're making more of a point for the other bureaucrat abilties (name change and bot flagging) to be decoupled and tied to administrator. In my opinion, there is relatively little controversy to this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so name changing and bot flagging is easily admin work. My other focus is rights-changes, which has been modified lately by the community to make 'crats wait before resysopping. Please do note my initial proposal included promotions, name changes and rights, it wasn't just "focussed (sic) primarily on name changes"... There are also around four RFAs per month which could be handled by Arbcom. We don't need a 'crat for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is to deal with disputes, not for flagging admins/crats. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, Arbcom can decree that people are de-admined, de-crat'ed, whatever. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with some of their actions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed they can do so, but to my knowledge ArbCom has not ever decreed that a user be made an administrator if they have never undergone a successful RfA. There's a precedent there, and I don't think it's one that ArbCom would be happy to break. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But they could. It would happen twice a year. Arbcom are happy to run this place, they can deal with it I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Both focused and focussed are acceptable spellings in the OED. There is no incorrect spelling here! :-P --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) Speaking as someone who is thought (by some) to be prone to the occasional over-reaction, I have to wonder: isn't it possible that this is an over-reaction, TRM? Crats are by and large people we trust very much to do boring but important things (with the very, very occasional exciting but important thing) that would get all messed up if it was opened up to the whole admin crew, who have a record of ... (don't want to get blocked) ... a mixed level of competency. I assume this is a response to the recent imposition of 24 hour wait? All that is really saying is that it's possible something happened in the past that a Crat doesn't know about, so give it 24 hours so someone can mention it if they know about it. I'm fairly sure it wasn't intended as an insult to the Crats, or an implication that we no longer need you. It's not a comment on your judgement, it's a comment on your lack of omniscience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your thoughts. This isn't something that's a snap from the 24-hour decision, it's just something I've been wondering about. Name changes are pretty much automated. RFA/RFBs, besides those close ones, are simple to finish. Otherwise, what else is there that the community or Arbcom couldn't do for themselves? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hardy Cross once said, in relation to structural engineering, "Strength is essential, but otherwise unimportant." I think Crats are the same way; your work is essential, but otherwise unimportant. If you let the admin horde try to rename people, I guarantee you someone is going to screw it up (quite possibly me). Much of it is grunt work, but there is a critical spark of judgement required before the final rename/sysop/flag button is pushed. We've chosen you lot to do that, because we trust that you're far less likely than one of us to screw it up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That would carry weight if the community hadn't just decided we ('crats) would screw up a resysop if we didn't wait 24 hours. We also have bots and clerks for renaming, so I'm asking what is it we actually provide that Arbcom or the community couldn't do without us? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But the 'crats recently did screw up a resysop by not waiting the 24 hours ... a period that had been agreed upon, but that one buro went outside of. I find this argument particularly WP:LAME - a couple of weeks ago, the community suggested a new role (to do with RFA clerks) that Bureaucrats are the ONLY possible level to perform, and you guys wimped out. You cannot turn down appropriate "work" one day, then whine and moan that there's no work to do anymore. Totally lame. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I declare your argument equally as lame, because many of us (including MBisanz, myself and bibliomaniac15) said that it was up to the community to decide and that we would happily go along with the role if the community wished us to do so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You missed my, similarly worded, opinion, which, <ahem> I believe was the first response, lol. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I sat there saying to myself "I think I forgot someone" when I wrote that. Sorry! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the community didn't decide you would screw up a resysop if you didn't wait 24 hours; they decided that you might screw up a resysop by not knowing something important, and not knowing that you don't know. Please don't take offense because the community implied you aren't all-knowing and 100% perfect; the community (by a much larger margin) previously decided you folks were trustworthy enough to actually do the button pushing. (And FWIW, a Crat has to be trusted by 85%, an Arb only by 50% :) ) And no, we don't have clerks and bots for renaming, we have clerks and bots who help you to rename. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam, I think you make the point well and clearly. No one has said anything about bureaucrats in possession of all the facts making bad decisions; returning rights remains a discretionary area in respect of which bureaucrats can - and do - legitimately differ from time to time. The concern that was expressed (and had historically been expressed, including by bureaucrats) was that we might get it wrong if we weren't in possession of all the facts. That seems a very different issue to the suggestion that there is somehow community confidence in bureaucrats has lowered. WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've proposed policy changes that would have expanded the Crat's role (WP:RAS) and still want it expanded. I think having a position with such a high standard to perform the existing tasks is a good thing, personally. I would also note that from my experience, Bureaucrats enjoy the highest approval rating and trust by regular editors around here, higher than Arbs or Admin. That would tell me that the average editor wants Bureaucrats here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the issue of the 24-hour wait period, as contentious as TRM appears to find it, it rather a red herring in relation to the actual discussion he's asking us to have: whether the position of crat is useful anymore. My personal view is that the crats have become victims (so to speak) of their own competence - we asked for people who were steady, uncontroversial, and could make consistent decisions. We got them. In fact, we got people who were so competent at that what they do that they've managed to do something almost unthinkable in the rest of our community processes: they've standardized things in their domain almost down to a T, with numerical cutoffs for RFAs, exacting specifications for what name changes are workable, and defined guidelines for when and whom they re/desysop. These processes reliably work according to these standardized guidelines, because the crats are so good at being consistent in using them.

  The problem, if there can be said to be one, then, is that these processes work so well, so reliably, that now that they're standardized, you don't need any particular use of judgment to carry them out. You don't need to be that super-consistent crat to spin the wheel; it's already spinning on its own and could continue to be spun by the occasional clerk or admin push when needed. In that sense, I think the position of crat has outlived its usefulness in these areas.

  Does that mean the crats should be eliminated? I'm not entirely sure. There will always be tasks on the project for people who are highly consistent, uncontroversial, competent, and trusted by the community beyond the admin or even arb level. The thing is just that the tasks that need that mindset now aren't the ones we entrusted to crats back in the day. 99% of RFAs don't need crat-level unimpeachable judgment. 99% of name changes and bot flaggings don't, either. But other things do - things like closing of contentious RfCs, like the evaluation of whether a cloud exists around a particular desysoppped admin, like the maintaining of decorum in areas where issues are hot and cool heads are needed. If we're going to talk about the future of the crat position, I would prefer to reshuffle things and give crats responsibilities that they're actually suited for, rather than keeping them around just to continue doing the same paper-shuffling that nearly anyone could do. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• A few thoughts from a non-'crat:
  • A 24-hour waiting period for some decisions still doesn't guarantee that the right decision will be made. On ArbCom, sometimes we take 24 days (and sometimes it feels like 24 weeks) to make some decisions and we may not get them all right. A 24-hour waiting period for resysopping has pros and cons—I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other—but I certainly don't think that any bureaucrat should take the new policy personally.
  • At one point the developers (i.e. the Foundation employees who actually program and operate the software and the servers) were strongly against allowing any administrator to do renames, because renames utilized a lot of system resources and an ill-thought rename could noticeably affect the technical performance (e.g. time it takes for edits to save) of the entire Wikimedia server system. I'm not sure if that's still the case (MBisanz is one who would probably know).
  • I don't know whether bureaucrats play an actual policy role, as opposed to a purely technical one, in bot-flagging. It's conceivable that allowing any administrator to flag a bot (with BAG approval) might make sense at this point, in the same way that any administrator can now create a rollbacker or a reviewer. On the other hand, this might equally be a solution instead of a problem.
  • As for closing contentious RfAs, I agree that there are relatively few of them these days; if we were designing the system from scratch, we might not create a special class of administrators to close them. After all, there are far more contentious DRVs (for example) than RFAs, but while a few administrators may choose to specialize in closing DRVs, they do so more-or-less by self-appointment. Would it be possible for RfAs to be closed in this fashion? I suppose it would, but I also suppose that the consequences of a disputed consensus on an RfA that could be closed by any of a few hundred people would be more than usually nasty.
  • Speaking only for myself and not for my fellow arbitrators (though I have the suspicion most would agree with me), I don't feel that the criteria the community used in electing me as an arbitrator reflect that I'd have been equally entrusted to close RfAs. The tasks and the way one goes about deciding an arbitration case or a ban appeal, and how one would assess consensus at RfA, are very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW - I very much agree with what Floq, Dennis, and many others have said above. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't feel there was anything wrong with expecting the crats to wait 24 hours to resysop people. My problem was and remains that Arbcom feels it is acceptable to intervene in a resysop that has followed the defined procedures. Statements such as "As far as I can see, this was a error to resysop, and should be able to be undone quickly by us." and "I would prefer us to resolve by motion that the bureaucrats should make a decision en banc concerning the return of rights to FCYTravis. I would have the bureaucrats return to us with a decision, and have us implement that decision." The Arbs didn't indicate that Nihonjoe acted corruptly or failed to follow policy; they merely said that they wanted a different outcome, so they believed they should overrule him. It would be very similar to an admin undeleting an article because he disagreed with another admin's AFD close or Arbcom ordering an article deleted because it thought it failed retention criteria or a Steward deciding to grant someone Checkuser because it thought Arbcom made a mistake in not appointing them. I was and remain strongly dissatisfied with Arbcom's belief that it is the righter of all wrongs and the final determiner of all processes.

As to the present proposal, I would disagree with devolution of RFA closure and renames to admins because of the controversy of RFA and the performance risks of renames. Bots, while formally under crat oversight, have generally been delegated to the BAG. There are still some obscure performance issues with giving out bot accounts to anyone, so I would want further comment from people who have a better appreciation of those risks before I opined on that aspect. As I've said before, I wouldn't mind transferring RFA and renames to the Stewards at Meta. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the Arb case, that is in part my fault for filing. Keep in mind, I had never filed at Arb and was perhaps not knowing what to expect. I was 6 or 7 months into the bit and had avoided Arb before then. My intentions were honorable and not against any particular Crat, but I probably should have sought other solution first. In my defense, I saw a genuine risk to resysoping and felt that timeliness was important, but if I had to do over again, I would have done it differently. I am human, I err, and I will admit when I do. I do support the 24 hour waiting period, as a way for us to help the Crats, not because I question their ability or faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz (at least my understanding of what he was saying), above, in thinking Arbcom (at least some of them, anyway) overstepped its bounds by interfering in a by-the-letter resysop which completely followed policy (to the letter, just for double emphasis). Yes, some people disagreed with the decision, but he left because he was mad, not because he was under imminent threat of being desysopped. The case should never have been accepted in the first place. I place no fault in Dennis Brown, however, as he was just following what he perceived to be the proper steps. Polarscribe was also a bit slow to respond to people's concerns (however unfounded they may have been, given that the only examples of "misuse" of the admin bits were shaky at best). I can understand he reticence, though, especially given how nasty some people can be even when shown blatant proof that their perception is completely false (I have first hand experience with that). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note regarding renaming: the most important reason (IMO) that it is restricted to a tiny number of people vetted by the community is not because it's particularly mentally taxing, but because serious, difficult to repair damage can be done if someone with nefarious intent gets ahold of that right – much more damage than the block or delete tool. (I'll avoid the temptation to explain why.) That's not to say it necessarily has to be a bureaucrat task, but I think we would be wise to be wary of distributing that particular button to a broader group of users. As to the larger point of the need for the 'crat role itself, as is often the case I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Floquenbeam on all points. 28bytes (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of the points mentioned above (as far as not supporting this idea), though my primary reason is somewhat different from those mentioned. Frankly, I feel like dumping bureaucrat duties onto the administrators is the absolute wrong direction, based on the fact that I feel RfA has stagnated due to adminship not longer being "no big deal"; I would rather see a reduction of duties for administrators, rather than an increase, in the hope that people will become a bit more lenient in their support of administrators. (this goes hand-in-hand with a desire for adminship to be more easily removed, in the face of not-quite-bad-enough-for-ArbCom behavior, but I also realize that hell will freeze over multiple times before that happens)
  I do agree that, right now, being a bureaucrat is a fairly easy job (certainly disproportionately so, considering what a nightmare RfBs are), but I think dissolving the position and parceling out the responsibilities is the wrong direction. (and I doubt ArbCom wants to start dealing with vanishing requests, which most certainly would not be the sort of thing opened up to the entire admin corps) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't understand the notion of 'crats not having enough to do. They can perform Admin. duties, edit articles, write bots, look after the kids, watch football or spend some time in the garden (yard). They are not tied to a laptop waiting for a 'crat. action to pop up. More on topic, the prospect of some marginal RFAs being closed by any passing Admin. is, by itself, sufficient to make this proposal unsupportable. Leaky Caldron 09:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like the idea of RfA judging being handed to ArbCom!! At the very least, if you must do this, plan it so that it rolls out in 2 years time so that the arbitrators we've just elected to be arbitrators can be arbitrators, and at the next ArbCom election we'll judge the candidates on their abilities to be arbitrators and bureaucrats. Closing RFAs requires the highest level of care to determining consensus, being an arbitrator does not. - filelakeshoe 12:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• In short, no to dissolution. I wanted to offer a clever response to the RfA numbers observation, observing that 95% of Physician decisions could be made by a layman, it's the 5% that justify the earnings, but Floquenbeam's strength allegory is more powerful, so whichever works.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Agreeing with Floquenbeam, EVula, and NewyorkBrad. Giving more responsiblity to administrators will make it yet more difficult to pass an RFA, and we've already gone round and round in circles talking about that problem. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the 24-hour wait to re-sysop, but I don't see how that requirement indicates a lowered trust in bureaucrats. We have to wait seven days for an RFA to run its course instead of just adding the bit when the RFA appears to be heading in that direction. This doesn't seem any different to me. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose dissolution. I'd much rather see bureaucrats take control of a defined process of review of individuals exercise of administrative functions, and thereby become the main guardians of deadministration, in addition to RfA. It regrettable that more bureaucrats are not more active in policy debate along these lines. Arb com should be a port of last recourse, for complex matters, matters for which there is no defined process. I like the 24 hour wait for a readmin decision because I think these things should be slow and serious, and because non-bureaucrats should be able to follow these things in real time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose dissolution, especially as proposed, and not simply because I'm a 'crat. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction (as stated by Useight stated, above), and I also agree with Floquenbeam, EVula, and NewyorkBrad, as well as MBisanz, SmokeyJoe, and several others above. I see no valid reason for pursuing this course. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has contributed. For what it's worth, it was most certainly not a knee jerk reaction, merely a response to a mounting sense that the position of 'crat has been slowly eroded over the past few years. My opinion, nothing more. Also, this was never a proposal, it was "a simple question" about the position, so all those who suggested I was actively proposing something perhaps should re-read the initial post. In any case, once again thanks for all the opinions, it's nice to see that the community still place some trust in our bureaucrats. I'd appreciate someone closing this thread down now, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2012 (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.

A Bureaucrat to sit ex-officio on Arb Com

I suggest, for both pragmatism and symbolism, that one bureaucrat should be an ex-officio (& non-voting) member of the Arbitration Committee.

The bureaucrats are charged with privilege issues, especially adminship.

Arb Com is charged with ruling on editors' disputes (behavioural, not editorial disputes), and is to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.

The two have overlap, from two very different directions.

A bureaucrat ex-officio member symbolically asserts the strained theory that Arb Com is a committee with terms of reference and not the project's ultimate authority.

As Arb Com members are not (generally) bureaucrats, some inside expertise on their role is desirable.

I would have the Bureaucrats choose their representative by a method of their own choosing, subject to approval of their representative by Arb Com. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hersfold is a bureaucrat and ArbCom member. --Rschen7754 01:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So he is. So another bureaucrat would be chosen for the non-voting ex officio role. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So what's the problem that would be solved by this? --Rschen7754 03:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• The perception that Arb Com is a superior body that may override bureaucrat decisions.
• The perception that Arb Com as a body doesn't necessarily understand bureaucrat policy.

Arb Com may not always have a qualified bureaucrat present, and indeed, past non-secret arb com votes have indicated preference against a person being both a bureaucrat and arb ("hat collector"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have always been allowed to comment on ArbCom pages. I don't see this being helpful, and would violate confidentiality (that whole arbcom-l thing?) --Rschen7754 03:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How would the 'crat member to ArbCom be elected? By the community or by his colleagues? What would be the purpose of his membership of the ArbCom if he cannot vote? That is, the "privileges"/"rights" of ArbCom members consist of: voting in motions and cases, access to arbcom-l, access to arbcomwiki, access to functionaries-en. If you cut out voting in motions and cases, you end up just with one appointed 'crat to do what? Monitor ArbCom's internal discussions? If the is cross-pollination, then surely you'd want an arbcom member on the crats' mailing list. Regardless, I don't really understand the purpose and benefits of the idea. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

How elected? See my "I would have" paragraph above. 

Purpose?  To alter some perceptions, which may or may not be accurate. Generally, non-voting ex officio committee members pretty much only to give specialist or alternative perspective advice when asked or when needed. 

The "privileges" I mention are user rights, adminship & bots especially. 

Monitor ArbCom's internal discussions? Yes, and maybe participate sometimes. 

An arbcom member on the crats' mailing list?  Maybe. 

You don't really understand the purpose and benefits of the idea?  

Have you ever served on a committee that included ex officio members?  It's really an idea for the crats, especially crats who feel arb com is impinging on crat territory, I think.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin request InShaneee

Hello, I was just told that my admin rights are going to be permanently lost if I don't manually request them restored, so I'd like to do so in the hopes I can find time to get back to work soon. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure your resysop is a mere 23 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: you made one edit here in the last five years, namely the edit to request your admin tool back. Why would you suddenly need to use the admin tools and are you aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in your preceding five years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, but also noting that ArbCom did not desysop and that was roughly 6 months before editor left altogether. --Rschen7754 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. My question notwithstanding, I feel uneasy about this resysop given the unanimous conclusions of Arbcom "back in the day" about inappropriate behaviour as an admin. Back then, a ten-day suspension of sysop ability would these days most likely equate to being removed of the bit, more importantly the behaviour of this editor was noted as exhibiting "substantially similar previous behavior" which "was discussed at length by the community" which revealed " the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them"..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like "a cloud" to me ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, part of the sanction was "InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days." I count 41 edits after that Arb hearing, scattered over a few months before leaving. I will leave the interpretation up to the Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, I have been periodically reading what's been going on behind the scenes over the last few years, so I'd like to think I'm still pretty up to date. The reason I'd like my privileges back is because, as my edit history shows, most of the work I did here was simple reversions from the 'recent changes' list, uncontroversial speedy deletions, and other 'mop' type activity. I had always planned to come back after a break (and had been told that wouldn't be an issue), so when I do come back, that'd likely be where I'd want to pick up at. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a no from me. Other 'crats may see if differently, of course, but I can't see the purpose in re-promoting this editor based on no activity for five years and a cloudy past including admonishment from Arbcom (albeit back in the day). Suggest the editor submits himself to RFA, like other candidates, so the community can assess his ability in the current climate (i.e. understand the five-year gap and whether or not the editor meets current standards). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading WP:CLOUD is quite enlightening in this case. I quote:

A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as appropriate to resume the role at will once it has become "stale".

The concern also arises because resignation may be seen as having resolved the issue and therefore the matter may have been dropped by others rather than examine an issue that is no longer in need of remedy.

Accordingly a user who steps down in such a way that it seems they have evaded their conduct being actually assessed by the community, or their fitness to the role being affirmed, may be refused the right to automatically reclaim that role later without going through the usual process again to confirm they do in fact have the community's trust.

Given these definitions, InShaneee does not meet the definition of having resigned under a cloud. The resignation was not before the user's conduct was fully examined, and was not done to evade assessment of their conduct as the Arbitration case was completed. If InShaneee had remained active then they would likely still have their administrator rights. As such, do we have the right to decline the request? I do not know the answer to these questions yet. I will need to think more about this issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well rather than just blindly following the guidelines, I'm suggesting an editor with no edits for five years and who had an Arbcom case admonishing them for dubious admin behaviour in the past is not a suitable candidate for immediate re-sysop. If this is the kind of candidate we blindly re-sysop "per policy" or "per guideline" then we've got it wrong. How can the community have faith in this kind of candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm "blindly following guidelines" when I quite clearly stated I've not even made my mind up about what I think is the correct course of action yet. All I was doing was giving some points for consideration. That is allowed, yes? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be a little careful of how these essay (not policy) pages spring into existence and who edits them. That pages contains some sensible points (and some less sensible points IMHO), but is basically one contributor's viewpoint and is far from an exhaustive account of the factors that have been (or should be considered) in these cases. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my fault, I didn't mean to single you out here, my apologies. I meant, instead of "us" (i.e. crats) blindly re-sysopping, this case seems more contentious than most. I see no good reason to resysop someone who hasn't made a single edit in five years but suddenly gets an email telling him he's not going to be an admin any more, just for him to show up here asking for his bit back. When we rename people, we often ask questions like "are you sure you won't edit on behalf of others" or "are you sure you're not editing with a conflict of interest", but with this resysop process, we're just saying, sure, after five years without a single edit, you can just become an admin again. Seems anomalous. I would like these candidates for re-sysop to dedicate themselves to some kind of editing, rather than just give them the admin tool back after five years of inactivity barring a single edit to say "I need it back....". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair point. I need to think about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the e-mails sent out for were that exact reason: to notify of the impending lengthy inactivity policy going into place on January 1 and to see if they were interested in the tools being restored under the former process (with the 24 wait, now). On that note, I would be very weary of a resysop in this case, 'crats. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Weary or wary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo, sorry. Being wary can make you weary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this a very borderline call. On the one hand, I lean in the same direction as Rambling Man - inappropriate conduct leading to sanction followed by extended inactivity sounds like controversial circumstance / under a cloud if those words are to be given their natural meaning. On the other hand, I can see the argument that the "controversial circumstances" having been investigated and found to warrant a temporary (not permanent) removal of rights, it would be wrong for that decision to be second guessed because the inactivity of the user allows bureaucrats to do so. That doesn't necessarily strike me as what's happening here. I think the key question is: does the ArbCom decision "cleanse" the misconduct such as to prevent us weighing it in the balance when considering whether to restore the tools? On balance - I don't think it does. As I understand it, restoration of rights without RfA is meant to be available to administrators in good standing. Refusing to resysop without RfA is not a bureaucrat imposed sanction, it simply reflects our assessment that the circumstances in which a user left / became inactive were controversial such that the question of whether or not rights should be restored should be referred to the community. This seem to me to be such a case - notwithstanding the temporary desysop, I do think InShanee stopped editing in controversial circumstances. It therefore seems best to err on the side of caution and let the community decide at RfA, but I think input from other bureaucrats would be helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WJBscribe excellently conveys both sides of the decision. I think ultimately we should AGF and think that the inactivity was not from the ArbCom case. I would ultimately say to resysop through AGF and go from there. They can always be desysopped through ArbCom case if they prove to misuse the tool.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this for quite a while, I'm leaning towards agreeing with WJB here. I think that given the nature of the situation, RfA is the best bet. This is not us saying declining to resysop, it is us saying that in this case it is not up to us to decide. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after seeing Jreferee's request, I decided it was worth sending emails to the people I had Mabdul notify earlier this month about the change in policy; that's why the latest requests are here. My take is that the community does not want us acting with discretion in resysopping requests. The presumption is that a user can be resysopped unless a prohibition applies. The prohibitions are:

1. User has been inactive for three year period of time which includes or is subsequent to the date of desysopping (details vary): InShaneee filed this request prior to the expiration of the prior policy
2. User resigned the tools in a manner so that it appears he did so to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR): InShaneee's conduct was scrutinized by Arbcom and his conduct subsequent to the case does not indicate he left to avoid further scrutiny
3. The reviewing bureaucrat is not satisfied that the person requesting resysopping is the original owner of the account or that the account's security has not been compromised: No one has questioned InShaneee's identity
4. Subsequent to desysopping, the user engaged in conduct of an extreme and egregious nature such that no reasonable person could doubt they would have been desysopped should they have done it while an admin (socking, severe copyvios, etc.): InShaneee made no edits subsequent to his desysopping for inactivity and no other bad acts have been alleged

Based on that analysis, I don't see on what basis we can deny a resysopping. We don't judge admin behavior, that's Arbcom's job. We only judge if a person resigned to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior. No reasonable person could find that InShaneee resigned or went inactive to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior because Arbcom actually reviewed their behavior. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• What if all the Crats have looked at it and have simply decided "I won't say no, but I can't say yes"? Would the request eventually be closed out simply due to an unwillingness of a sufficient number of Crats willing to openly approve? Are Crats obligated to give a definitive opinion if they have commented? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis here, and I think a member of ArbCom (or a couple) should comment here about whether InShaneee should be resysopped or not. It's clear that the crats disagree in this case and emotions are high, and its not worth all this drama. Secret ^account 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What drama? This is a very calm discussion. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What Deskana said. I don't have an opinion and don't see that it would be helpful even if I did here. My questions weren't rhetorical, I am genuinely curious. And this is outside of ArbCom's scope anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe drama is a poor choice of word, I'm trying to say to keep emotions low and one resysopping isn't worth so much discussion. There been way too much scrutiny on the bcrats lately and I don't think this is a case to have a long discussion over considering the circumstances. He became inactive after a RFAr over four years ago and had a RFC prior on the same concerns, I think it is one of these "exceptional cases" ArbCom should mull over to resysop or not, and not worth fighting over. Secret ^account 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it is a very interesting, calm and productive conversation from my reading. Arbcom doesn't have the authority to give someone the admin bit, only Crats do. And as we have learned through my previous learning experience, Arbcom has no authority to review the Crats decision unless there is some misconduct by the Crats, and there certainly isn't. I think you are misreading this thread Secret, this is exactly how the process is designed to work, and it is working quite well: no rush, honest discussion, thoughtful review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be that the crats as a group owe it to users to decide on matters the community has entrusted to them. To simply fail to conclude on a request would be a abandonment of their responsibility. Also, I don't know why an Arb opinion would matter here. I don't see any possible question of user misconduct or uncertain identity, which is what Arbcom handles. As a practical matter a decision will occur because I'm willing to resysop and intend to do so after the 24 hour period unless another crat says they intend to make a decision to the contrary at that time. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Crats are required to act. There are very few circumstances where an editor, regardless of permissions, is specifically expected to act. The right to not act is essentially a soft form of WP:IAR. I think it is acceptable for Crats, or anyone else, to say that while policy dictates a specific action, 'I personally do not feel comfortable performing the action, and will leave it for others to act.' If no one can be found willing to carry out what policy calls for, it suggests the policy is sufficiently flawed that it needs to be fixed. That said, I agree with MBisanz's analysis above, (I'm not sure when the 3 year rule kicks in, but no one has claimed it applies here), policy dictates a resysop, and if MBisanz is willing to act, I also see no problem with that. Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree no person is required to do anything on Wikipedia, but I don't think a group (crats, admins, etc) should be allowed to collude to shirk avoid fulfilling a function they were entrusted by each of them individually claiming they were uncomfortable making the specific decision. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't endorsing or even referring to colluding here. Colluding to refuse to resysop would be passive-aggressive, and distasteful. The "I won't say no, but I can't say yes" did seem to be a common theme that I took as sincere from all concerned. I've simply not seen that situation here before so it begged the question, which I think you've answered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it; that's simple. Crats are elected in part because of their individual history of not getting into fights. One way to not get into fights is to not actually say an opinion, but rather express an initial view and say you're open to more discussion. If you look at old crat chats, they're basically in the same form. I suspect it's a selection effect of the high RFC threshold. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this one, I think that one or more Bureaucrat can sincerely say "I just don't know." and mean it, which could lead to the situation I described. From your responses, I basically deduced the answer to my questions to be "Bureaucrats as a group don't have the luxury of not making a decision, and at least one must make the final call.". There is no "do nothing at all" option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, if we're going to be such a small subset of the community because of the trust required, I don't think we can, as a group, avoid fulfilling the functions the community has given us. Part of this is deciding these decisions. If we want to be seen as legitimate delegates of a community function, we can't shirk the responsibility when the going gets tough. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to correct TRM's assumption about the ten-day suspension. It wasn't a mask for tool removal or any such thing; we desysopped plenty of administrators back then and if we thought he deserved it we'd have done so. The incident in front of us just wasn't all that serious by itself. Administrators make bad blocks all the time; if he hadn't blocked a user with stout friends it never would have come to arbitration. Having come to arbitration, we inevitably passed a remedy but it wasn't much. We deliberately did not desysop him, and we could have. I don't know if that helps your deliberations. Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that none of the current arbitrators (either the 2012 arbitrators or the 2013 arbitrators) were part of the Committee that decided the InShaneee case in 2007. I do remember the case from the time, however, and I think it is clear that if the Arbitration Committee had thought that InShaneee should be desysopped and compelled to undergo a new RfA to become an administrator again, they would have voted that remedy. When the case closed with a 10-day suspension remedy, and InShaneee requested and was granted the tools back at the end of the 10 days, that was the end of the matter. At the time InShaneee became inactive, there were no remaining disputes open regarding him, and so from the perspective of "under controversial circumstances" or "under a cloud," I think under the current policy he is entitled to reinstatement. :

Of course, quite independent of the arbitration case, it is debatable whether an administrator who's been inactive for almost five years should be entitled to be reinstated on request. I personally have mixed feelings about that subject, but on balance I think our experience is that most of old-time administrators who came back from long breaks and reclaimed their adminships have used resumed their use of the tools in a cautious and responsible fashion. But the community has recently discussed this at length, and the consensus was to change the policy—but also to build in a grace period before the new policy took effect, for those who returned and requested adminship back before the policy change took effect. For better or worse, it seems to me that InShaneee and the others posting on this page fall into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and resysopped per my analysis above. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so much for discussion and consensus. Four bureaucrats have commented on this request. Two of us (Rambling Man and I) determined that resyop without RfA was inappropriate. A third (Deskana) expressed the view that he has leaning to agreeing with us. You then posted an analysis that came to the opposite conclusion and, without getting input from other bureaucrats or discussing it further with ourselves, you decided to proceed on the basis of your own analysis. Pleas explain. WJBscribe (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So this is what happens when I leave a discussion alone for a day? How disappointing. Perhaps the term "bureaucrat team" should be reconsidered, because I see no team here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

To me the recent events, both on the Polascribe matter and more recent ones seem to show that maybe we should be holding some confirmation RfBs. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A motion of no confidence in the team. Re-confirm them all? Start now in the early hours of Christmas. Close early New Years Day. Won't the editors with life-Wikipedia balance be surprised when they return? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

When all the bureaucrats run reconfirmation RfBs at the same time... who closes them? Hah, that's actually a pretty funny quesiton. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

TRM has said later that he isn't as a crat when he's asking these questions and he's stated things in this thread which presuppose a resysop will be granted. Deskana, among other comments he made, indicated he did not think InShaneee was under a cloud but then later said he thought we should not decline and not resysop. WJB, you said you wanted more input, which I and others gave. Subsequent to both your and my comments, Mackensen and NYB provided probative evidence regarding the state of affairs that existed at the time in question, which, combined with my own analysis and the other comments, I found warranted resysopping after the 24 hour waiting period. I've always thought the resysopping process involved a crat making a decision in the same way an RFA or rename involves a crat making a decision; they consult with other people, but at the end of the day, any errors in the resysopping (like if it's premature or the crat has a conflict) are the resysopping crat's responsibility. I asked if anyone felt strongly enough otherwise that they wanted to issue a decision that he should not be resysopped, but no one did. I value the collegiality of the crat team, but I've never thought of resysopping as a group decision in the same way a crat chat is. I've also commented further on my talk page to WJBscribe specifically. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say Mackensen's comments have alleviated my concern that a grave mistake was made by resysopping InShaneee. I wouldn't say his comments made me think that we made the right decision by doing it, though. I'm still particularly disappointed that you took action when we were still discussing it. But I guess there's no point in me really thinking about it anymore... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I echo Deskana's disappointment. If this was not a "group" decision, then it appears to have been an individual decision to overrule two other individual decisions. That's not the way we do things. WJBscribe (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed by the unilateral decision but from the sounds of it, I confused MBisanz into thinking I agreed with a re-sysop. I think the closest I got to that was to say that procedurally the resysop would most likely go ahead. I don't recall being any more positive than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing this wall of text, I find myself leaning toward MBisanz's assessment of the situation: I don't see that he left to avoid further scrutiny, and what scrutiny there was fairly small potatoes and didn't rise to the level of "leaving under a cloud". While I can see some valid arguments on the opposing side, I don't think there is enough there to prevent the return of the admin bit (again, based on MBisanz's assessment, above). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same boat as Nihonjoe; I would've been supportive of the repromotion. I do think that we don't need to be beholden to the 24 hour countdown from request to restoration, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings from a former admin

I've just read on my talk that automatic resysopping is going away, and if I don't ask for it by December 30, I'd have to go through RFA again. I hereby affirm that this seems sane, logical and altogether a good idea to me, and I wouldn't want to be resysopped just because I used to qualify for adminship in the past. In the unlikely case I'll ever return, I'll run for administrator like everyone else. Happy editing! JRM · Talk 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! MBisanz ^talk 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your work, and thank you for your view on the resysop process. Indeed, your suggestion that you would prefer to regain the admin bit via RFA is quite noble. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, someone else (outside the wiki) has flat-out called me nuts for doing this, because (quote) "RfA is the worst thing" and "we need active admins far too much than to risk that scenario". Huh. I didn't know things where that dire. My decision still stands, of course, if anything it shows it's more appropriate now than ever. JRM · Talk 15:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

An attitude like that at RfA will get you nothing but supports. --64.85.215.128 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-admin request for Ligulem

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.

---

Ligulem (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
Hi all. I'd like to ask to get my admin bits back. I lost them due to inactivity and I was told I can get them back by a request here. I believe I wasn't even notified when I got my admin bits removed, but I may have missed something. Thanks. Ligulem (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

While procedurally you'll probably be re-sysoped in the next 24 hours, you've made no real edits in the last three-and-a-half years. Is there a reason you feel you still need the admin flag? Are you aware of all the changes to all the relevant policies? Do you think our current community deserve to gauge your current ability against current admins e.g. by running in another RFA? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm eligible for resysopping. Sure I don't know all the changes of relevant policies, but I know how to look them up. I don't think the heart and the spirit of the core rules has changed in the mean time, but of course I would look up everything again very carefully before acting. Back when I got my admin bits by an RFA it was a big deal. Frankly, I think I would not pass an RFA anymore ever. I think I wouldn't even try anymore. My request is indeed to avoid a new RFA. But why do you guys have the current rules where I'm eligible for? Why don't you simply send everyone in my situation to RFA again? I don't really think I need those rights right now, but I think I'd frankly like to avoid going through another RFA. But if you want to send people like me through a new RFA, so be it. Ligulem (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel you wouldn't pass an RFA anymore ever, why would you think it appropriate for you to be resysoped without scrutiny, other than in a "fair play" kind of way? I don't want to send anyone anywhere, but I'm interested in why people like your good self who haven't edited the Wikipedia seriously for nearly four years suddenly need to keep admin rights. Just a simple question. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I think I've honestly answered that question: I want to avoid a new RFA. I was also once a bit proud to have gotten the admin bits. But if people like you don't trust me anymore, that's ok. Your writings almost read like you are assuming bad faith on my part. There's nothing evil behind my request. I've read the new rules about resysopping and I think I'm eligible. When I stopped editing I was assuming I could get the admin bits back if I decide to return. This has changed, I was notified about that change and I was told that I will lose my admins bits definitely if I don't ask for resysopping now. Ligulem (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no bad faith, just an honest and open question why you would appear after four years' absence and ask for the admin flag back when you fully acknowledge that you believe you would not pass a current RFA. I'm not looking for "evil", I'm looking for some idea why anyone who is not commensurate with current policies nor has made any edits for four years would need to suddenly regain the admin bit. However, I appreciate your honest answer about wishing to avoid an RFA. You will no doubt be resysoped as a result of our current procedure, so you needn't worry about that I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ligulem, there has been a lot of discussion and policy change on resysoping (that is why you received the last notification, as a courtesy). I think The Rambling Man's questions are in good faith and legitimate. He said your answers won't affect the outcome in his eyes. The answers actually help us as a community understand why some people who aren't going to use the bits, want them. You have to admit, the idea someone admitting they can't pass an RfA and likely won't use the bits anytime soon (if ever), makes a person ask "Then why bother getting the bits back?" What value do they have if they aren't used? I'm not a Crat, so my opinion isn't very relevant here, but I admit being curious as to the answers myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I do understand your concerns. But if you think it to end, then the current rules would be absurd. The consequence would be that anyone like me would simply have to go through a new RFA. If you want to change the rules, then say so. So it seems, what we are discussing here are the rules, not my case. The problem I have is a timing problem: If I don't act now (which I've done by this request), I will lose my admin bits forever (today I thought that I somewhat would regret that, I started even reading about rules again). I know it sounds a bit silly. I think if you request the same high standard as required for new admins, then I won't meet them, right. Because I wouldn't pass a RFA now. All I can say is that I once met them, a long time ago by internet standards. And I assure you that I am still the same person. I didn't edit for quite a long time now, yes. But I may start editing again. Ligulem (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Part of the reason that the policy allowing for automatic return of the admin flag sans an RFA is to allow editors to take a break as needed and return to active administrating when they see fit. I resigned my tools in October 2010. I asked for them back in January 2011[1] and was given them back without objection, despite the fact that there was a decent chance I would not have passed an RFA at the time. TRM, if you would like to encourage Ligulem to seek adminship by going through a reconfirmation RFA, then you should make it clear that you are doing so in your capacity as a fellow editor and nothing else. NW (Talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I appreciate the answers, Ligulem. The resysop rules were changed because there needs to be some limits to how long, and the 1 to deactivate, 3 to require RfA was just the compromise. Having some kind of limit is a reasonable protection for the community as a whole, I think. I don't doubt your sincerity at all, and I would in fact hope you do come back and do some editing and rejoin the community in a meaningful way. Feel free to ping me if I can help with the new rules, I'm an admin and I've been here since 06 myself. I've seen lots of the changes first hand. Lots of others would be happy to help if asked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

NW, I don't see anything wrong with the questions TRM is asking, in fact, I think we all benefit from understanding the reasonings behind these requests. There's a slight difference in taking a wikibreak and not showing up at all for 4 years. I for one am very, very much interested in understanding the reasons why users who haven't been active here in 4 years suddenly want to become active and require admins tools to do so. I don't think either TRM or I would be even blinking if after four years they became active for a bit, say, a month, and then found out that they would like the tools back and so requested them. It is this whole exercise of being inactive for ages *and* asking for the tools before becoming active again that can give the impression sometimes that the sysop flag is seen as a hat that's nice to wear. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that when users run for RfA, we expect them to familiarize themselves with the policies *before* running. There's already enough admins who don't read the policies, there's no need for admins that vaguely promise (or not at all) that they might look up the policies in the future, after getting resysopped. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And if administrators want to wear the mop and bucket as a hat, we allow them to do that. If they begin misusing the tools, we have appropriate procedures to deal with that in due course. I'm just not liking this pressure being applied by bureaucrats in their official roles to tell a user how they should return to the community. Some people like to dive back in by writing a DYK; others might prefer to go block the odd vandal reported at AIV. It shouldn't be up to any of us to decide what is the right course of action for them. NW (Talk) 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we're not allowed to ask questions of them. Nothing stops them from ignoring our questions and nothing stops them from regaining their bits as allowed by policy and as TRM and others have made clear all along. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is quite remarkable about what some people are putting in my mouth here I haven't said :-). This starts by Dennis assuming that I wouldn't want to use the tools anyway and goes to Snowolf, who assumes that I don't read policies. He or she even uses the term "running". That's telling. So what you guys are trying to hold here is an RFA. That's it. Ligulem (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

About a month ago, we had an issue where an admin from several years ago re-requested the bit, and proceeded to perform controversial actions with it. Thus, people are naturally very wary about regranting the bit, even though policy allows for this. --Rschen7754 01:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)When one runs for a RfA, he is expected to read policies in advance. Before I started editing here, I spent two weeks learning the policies. If a former admin isn't willing to check up on what's changed and refresh his memory on what's changed with policies and mediawiki before asking for the bits back, he likely never will. It seems the decent thing to do. That is, if it's not all about the hats. Because frankly I fail to see the need for anybody that hasn't been around for four years to all of a sudden need the rights without first starting to be an active editor. It is indeed my personal opinion that anybody that has been inactive for a very significant period of time and hasn't resumed activity yet but asks for his flags back is more interested in the shiny badge than editing this encyclopedia of ours. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, you said " I don't really think I need those rights right now", so I wasn't assuming, I was taking you at your word, welcomed you, offered to help if you had any questions, and stated that I hope you do become active. I'm puzzled how that is offensive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I hereby retract my request for resysopping. Thanks for the discussion. We can now return to doing something (hopefully) more useful. Thanks. Ligulem (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Does Ligulem's participation here mean that he may now request automatic re-sysop at a much later date? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I assume that would be at the discretion of the bureaucrats at that time to determine, not really a decision that bureaucrats would decide in advance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Correct, Ligulem has never had a continuous three year period of inactivity, so he would continue to be eligible to request resysopping and have a crat determine his request until such time as he is inactive for three years. Also, I'm rather disappointed at the above discussion, particularly because he was never notified of the inactivity removal in the first place because of an oversight by the removing Steward, which seems patently wrong to me. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Personally I would like every Admin and 'Crat to resubmit at RFA/B every couple of years, active or not. That however, is not the agreed and recently modified process. A process was established to manage returning Admins following a lengthy break. Transitional arrangements were put in place up to January to allow a period of grace for want of a better description. Where in any of that did the agreed process countenance a question and challenge, pseudo RFA? Either he is eligible to re-apply under agreed terms or he isn't. Questioning his intentions in what looks like a rather bludgeoning and cack-handed manner seems rather inappropriate and beyond what was agreed. Leaky Caldron 11:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • So despite advising these people that they most likely would be procedurally re-sysoped, I'm not entitled to ask them any questions? In what way is what I've asked "cack-handed" by the way? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The "most likely would" is surely pertinent only to the identification of show stopper issues within the prescribed 24 hours. The transitional arrangements discussion made no reference to additional challenges. While anyone can ask anything within reason and your question is reasonable, this part in particular is nevertheless closed and leading, "Do you think our current community deserve to gauge your current ability against current admins e.g. by running in another RFA?". What the community deserves is per the recent agreement, including the transitional arrangements. Nothing more, nothing less. How is it fair on the applicant to offer a way back without RFA but then ask them whether the community deserves to gauge them via RFA? The whole purpose of the transitional arrangements was to offer the opportunity to reclaim their tools quietly and without challenge. It is quite obvious WHY people are requesting their tools back now, because time is running out for the free pass. His initial answer was totally honest. That should have been an end to it. Leaky Caldron 12:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm entitled to ask them anything I like. You, similarly are entitled to your position. Cheers, and happy Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
            • And you! I'm sure I can look forward to your support when I am flamed for asking every applicant whether they think the community should gauge their ability by running in another RFA now, despite having just been offered an RFA-free route back. Leaky Caldron 12:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Of course, assuming those people have been distinctly absent and shown no interest in Wikipedia other than to keep hold of tools they haven't used for four years and show no inclination of ever using in the future! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• I thought I'd chip into this discussion with my thoughts. I've been relatively inactive for the past couple of years. What I do now when I use my tools is make sure I stay out of trouble. I only use them in situations that would not be considered controversial by anyone. I think that's the safest use of them. If I did wish to return to a controversial area, I would make sure I read up on policies before doing so and enter into those areas very slowly. Sadly however, as recent actions have shown, some administrators who have returned have done so in quite an appalling way. I think TRM makes some valid points in this regard, but I think that we should use the approach of assume good faith and believe that returning administrators will use the tools for the good of the project. That said, although a discussion for another day, I'd like to see a need for the tools to be returned going forward, although I doubt very much that would ever gain consensus. Anyway, just be 2 pence worth - Have a lovely Christmas one and all! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm following this discussion since the first post and I really confused: The actual rules are very clear that Ligulem don't have to go through the hell week again. Although many contributors and also I would like to see that he/she would do it, we have no reason to assume that the community lost the trust in him. He/she wasn't leaving Wikipedia in any controversial situation and for the case multiple bad administrative actions would have been done, the community could start a desysop discussion. So where and why is that such a big deal to give him/her the bit back? mabdul 17:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It only became a "big deal" when I asked a couple of questions, while reassuring Ligulem that the procedural resysop would occur within 24 hours in any case. Then a shitstorm blew up, Ligulem threw the toys out and some of the community went bats. Time of year I guess. Never mind, not long to go until 2013! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's now 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) and the original request was 23:21, 23 December 2012. So unless anyone has discovered anything new about this user, I will go ahead with the resysop. Andrevan@ 23:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Mid-thread he withdrew the request. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he did, but I think it's clear he did so because of TRM's interrogation, which was inappropriate. Therefore I think a better course of action would be to resysop him in the hopes of keeping him as a contributor rather than honoring that request, and he may of course request courtesy desysop at any time. Andrevan@ 23:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it within your powers to forcibly resysop somebody that withdrew such a request. If you want to do so, you are free to ask the user to submit a new request. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't even notified that his tools were removed. The whole thing stinks and he's rightfully annoyed. I would rather extend him an olive branch so that maybe he will contribute to our encyclopedia project. Considering you were one of the ones supporting TRM's questioning above, as a bureaucrat I understand your viewpoint, which I think was a minority here. I would like to hear what MBisanz thinks, though. Andrevan@ 00:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point me to the relevant policy that gives you unlimited discretional authority to sysop anybody without a request on their part. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about unlimited discretional authority. The guy made a request for resysopping, which he is entitled to. He then withdrew the request, but there isn't some kind of formal withdrawal process anymore than there are required questions. Andrevan@ 00:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no required questions nor has anybody implied so, nor do I see it is pertinent to your assertion that the user's request for withdrawal can be ignored by bureaucrats. Is it your position that a user that has withdrawn a RfA can still be promoted by a 'crat? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrevan is right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

← Snowolf, the entire point is that this wasn't an RFA. Of course that isn't my position. Andrevan@ 00:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to know that at least in a RfA you'd respect the decision made by the directly interested user. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I certainly don't want users requesting tools to become an unpleasant process, I don't think asking a few basic questions about the reasons why users want them back is inappropriate. Both "Are you sure you want this?" and "Have you considered the issues/ramifications?" are questions frequently posed of those requesting things on this noticeboard. They're usually asked of those seeking to relinquish, rather than regain tools, but I think TRM's motivations in asking them here were clear and legitimate. TRM accepted that he could not refuse to return the tools, but asked some questions designed to have the requesting user reflect on whether he was asking for them back for the right reasons. I think it was legitimate to do so. WJBscribe (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think those questions are appropriate. I think "Do you think our current community deserve to gauge your current ability against current admins e.g. by running in another RFA?" is not. Also, he clearly responded with an answer, but TRM kept the thread going and was not satisfied. Andrevan@ 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what I tried to cover with him below, that we need to be as welcoming as we are inquisitive and have a better tone in the questions. He agreed to be more cordial in his questions in the future. Based on that exchange, I'm inclined to take him at his word and just move forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I still think Ligulem should be resysopped. Andrevan@ 03:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party. I firmly believe crats have a limited remit. We can voluntarily resysop a user per RFA or per a resysop request. We can impliedly resysop them if make some sort of error like prematurely desysopping them for inactivity. We can involuntarily desysop them per Arbcom or in an emergency or for inactivity. In that universe of powers, I don't see the ability to resysop them absent a request from them. Therefore, I would not resysop him and I would decline determining if he should be resysopped until and unless he requests resysopping. MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz. Also, we should not be resysopping people if they have withdrawn their request, regardless of the circumstances. Yes, he likely withdrew his request out of frustration for the process. But I'm imagining myself in his shoes, and if I'd asked for something I was told I could have, got questioned a lot about it, said I didn't want it anymore, then was given it anyway, I wouldn't be very happy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying that Ligulem still wants his adminship restored without his say-so is pure speculation. We trust our crats to follow proper procedure, and not make controversial decisions based on speculation, just as we do at RFA. --Rschen7754 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, it's xmas and he is likely unaviable and moreover he has pointed out original that he wanted the bit back... mabdul 04:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If a candidate files an RfA, gets 100 supports and zero oppose votes, but withdraws his request an hour before close, we should not give him the bit. The admin bit is voluntary thus requires an active request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear folks. I am still quite disappointed. I lost my adminship without knowing, got a notice a few days before christmas that I lost it (which was surprising to me because I still thought I had it), and was informed that I could get my bit back by making a simple request here, without going through an RFA. From my side, it also looked like I had to act before the end of the year, or I would lose my "right" for the simple process (to get back my bit without RFA). Then I told myself: "Hell, why not? I might even start editing again". Now I realize that there is no such thing as me losing anything by the end of the year (because, according to the current state of the rules, there was no such thing as a full three year period without edit by me). So, yes, my request was made in a hurry, because I assumed I had been under a timing pressure. I didn't have much time to read that this hole thing is nowadays an even "hotter potato" than RFA's were back in the day I passed mine. The "questions" asked to me here weren't really "questions". They sounded like a polite but aggressive expression of how evil I am by being so bold to actually use the procedure as laid out on the rules pages (which I read). So what this 'pedia currently has is a set of rules and a set of people who don't accept them by trying to game those rules by trying to turn this process here into another RFA. I'm not surprised that others in my situation didn't even bother to answer those "questions". Maybe I should have done the same, but that's not how I do things. I am always accountable for what I do so I do answer questions (even if I find them inappropriate and in aggressive manner).
It is quite remarkable. I was pretty inactive for years and now managed to open another can of worms within a couple of hours after starting to add messages to project- and talk pages. I'm still disappointed about what happens on this 'pedia.
I do thank the bureaucrats MBisanz and Andrevan for their care, and in particular to Andrevan for offering me to give me the bits back without asking any further questions. However, I decline. I do confirm that I withdraw my request for re-sysoping me. Thanks to all and best wishes. Ligulem (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a sec - when the bit is first removed due to inactivity, the editor is REQUIRED to be notified. Are you saying you were never notified? This adds an additional challenge here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I wasn't notified, but the removal of my admin bit was correct. I was inactive. But I still don't want my bits back now, anyway. Thanks. Ligulem (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ligulem, personally, I'd take a couple of days to think about that. As you know, keeping an admin account active can be a risk if you're not using it. But, if you think you'll be dedicating time to the project, then keep it. Seriously. I do think it was a fair question to ask if you're going to be around to reduce the risk - but nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, nor do I think that was the intent (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A very reasonable statement, thanks. The state I'm in right now isn't really that bad: If I understand the policy correctly, my admin bit is on the order of 24 hours away, iff I want it back. If I would, and then drop out again, the project (and my reputation) would be "at risk" from my account - if it were hijacked or something - for one year. So it's not a big deal either way, I think. I just need to get used to not have the bit, when editing. It feels a bit strange. Either way, I'll let the dust settle anyway. Greetings from a zombie-admin, Ligulem (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is sad that the above discussion has possibly caused Ligulem's retirement . The purpose of re-admin guidelines and policies has never been to drive former admins away like this. EngineerFromVega^★ 09:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is sad and I think I can speak for everyone when I say this is not what we wish. We want to encourage users to edit, not drive them away. With that said, I still think TRM did the right thing asking some basic questions and none of this changes the fact the user hasn't edited in 3 years. They essentially retired then, today they just added a message drawing attention too it. Kumioko (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• They haven't edited since March of 2008, almost 5 years, excepting to request the bit back. They retired a long time ago. The only reason they showed up here to begin with was due to a form letter about losing the bit. Let's not run off the people who ARE here every day by over-assigning blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The community agreed a process. It was a box ticking exercise. There was no reason, requirement or justification to ask questions here in the formal setting of the BN. Any informal questions should have been 1:1 on the user's talk page. It was a non-sequitur to ask questions since none were required to complete the process (other than to satisfy identity requirements). Even if the applicant had indicated that they were an axe murderer with a tendency to eat children for breakfast the agreed process could not have denied him their tools, so why probe their motives in a manner clearly perceived as hostile? Pointless. Leaky Caldron 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think thats true in general terms but I don't think that anyone, or at least not many, anticipated someone that hadn't edited in 3-5 years to really come back and request it back. I can think of a lot of reasons why someone would be offline for a year (religious mission, military assignment, medical, etc.) but once you start getting into the 3+ year mark, IMO, some valid questions need to be asked. A lot has changed in that time and the user could, though probably unintentionally, mess some things up. I do not believe they need to go through the whole RFA again in 99% of cases but I do think asking them a couple questions falls under the category of due diligence. Again, as TRM put it, had the individual not withdrawn the request they would probably have been given the tools back. On that note, WP is a much much more dramatic and emotionally draining place than it was 5 years ago when this editor was here last. If they loose their calm and throw their hands up at a few simple questions then its probably better they don't get the tools back for now. Again to reconfirm an earlier comment, no one wants to drive users away, and I am only speaking from the perspective of a non-admin, non-beauracrat editor myself. And a pretty disgruntled and disheartened one at that. But I think the questions were fair. Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2012 (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.

Suggestion for the next time

This is probably going to happen a lot in the next few days...

Taking extreme pains to not try to assign blame or criticize decisions that have already been made: It's sort of bad form to send someone an email saying they can get their bit back by posting here, and then argue with them when they do it. Kind of makes us look like we don't know what we're doing. I suppose it won't always result in pissing people off, but it sure isn't going to make them feel welcome to re-engage. There are more than enough poor current admins to get stressed out about; I don't think our biggest problem is going to be a handful of old admins who've been avoiding drama for years, and who will very likely either (a) not return to activity after the re-sysop, and have the bit removed again in a year; or (b) come back, and probably do occasional maintenance stuff when they see a need, but not be involved in the political side of this place, and therefore not screw things up. Also, the longer it's been since they were sysopped, the more likely that they're now responsible adults and unlikely to cause drama. Catching up on current policies is not really rocket science. And finally, it seems to me like there used to be a lot more clueful people around than there are now; we should encourage oldtimers with clue, not try to talk them out of coming back.

I really recommend if an old admin asks for their bit back before the deadline (or even a few days after it), we just check to see that they didn't resign under a cloud (or whatever PC term we're using for that), and convince ourselves they're the same person. If they meet the two criteria, give them back the bit and thank them for their interest. -Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with multiple points here by Floquenbeam. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps a more gentle tone is called for, but there are some legitimate questions to be asked in some circumstances. Most requests have been uneventful, but when the admin says "I would not pass an RFA anymore ever. I think I wouldn't even try anymore. My request is indeed to avoid a new RFA." and "I don't really think I need those rights right now, but I think I'd frankly like to avoid going through another RFA." I think questions are reasonable. It was made pretty clear that they wouldn't be denied the bit based on answers, and they were welcomed and offered assistance. When they are asking for the bit back, we are assuming they are an admin and just don't have the bit assigned to them. They should be able to handle a couple of good faith questions, same as you or I would be expected to, particularly when it is made clear it won't affect the outcome, and they should know they can ignore if they should choose to. We shouldn't badger anyone, but politely asking a few questions isn't badgering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm particularly surprised to find behavior like the one shown by you, especially for an admin. It is quite obvious that Dennis disagrees with WP:ADMIN and that he apparently tries to do forum shopping by turning resysoping requests into RFA's where the requesters have to explain why they want the bits back and having a debate about whether they are capable, and a repeating debate about WP:ADMIN. The rules at WP:ADMIN are quite clear and simple. Some people have assumed me of perhaps not being able to read and follow policy. I note it is you who are not following policy. I would also politely like to ask you to stop spreading lies about what I said. You said "..and likely won't use the bits anytime soon". I never claimed that. Please stop telling such stupid lies. Ligulem (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree with Floq. Particularly because Ligulem had never been notified of the initial removal for inactivity because of a Steward oversight, I find it wrong that we quizzed him at greater length than we have other returning admins. Also, if people are upset with the current policy, they should seek to amend the policy, not make pointy examples at the expense of returning users. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm just asking a few basic questions. I'm also making it clear that the resysop will doubtless go ahead in every case under current policy. I'm not trying to score points or go on some kind of crusade, but I'm interested in why people who are entirely absent for year after year really need their admin flag and why they would go to such an extent to avoid being re-examined by an entirely different community to the one that "elected" them (I say that because in some cases, older admins weren't even elected). It must truly suck when trying to run at RFA these days when people have contributed tens of thousands of good edits and get opposed based on failure to maintain 100% edit summaries or something equally trivial, who see editors who have been entirely absent for half a decade just pop by and get their admin flag back while declaring a positive desire to avoid an RFA. In future, to be clear, I'll guarantee that any questions I ask of this nature will be in the capacity of a concerned editor, not a 'crat. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• May I suggest that you folks simply stop "notifying" people like me. And change the rules to honestly state what they really are: a new RFA is required after inactivity. That would have saved me from wasting my time again here. Ligulem (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read my comments carefully. I said you would most likely be procedurally resysoped in 24 hours regardless of my questions (to whit: "While procedurally you'll probably be re-sysoped in the next 24 hours..."). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that questions are worth asking, but perhaps we can be more gentle in how they are asked? Asking too aggressively might make a question look like an inquisition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how much more gently I could have asked the questions... after all, these are seasoned admins who are fully aware of how it all works around here. I would have hoped, at the very least, that they would have had the courtesy to just decline to answer my questions rather than remain as silent as they had for the previous four years. Those who have ignored the questions, well how very unbecoming of people in such a lofty position as an admin............ ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Please don't take offense when I say that I agreed with the relevance of your questions, but think the tone was more harsh than you realize. I think redoubling the effort to be cordial when asking the questions would go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns expressed here. We are better served by being as welcoming as we are inquisitive, so our questions don't come across as an unexpected pop quiz. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't take offence from you Dennis, you seem to be one of the few with some common sense here! I'll do my best to "cordialise" my comments. Although as I've said, we're dealing with battle-hardened, experienced admins here who probably should understand that my concerns are simply posited for the best, most certainly for the best of Wikipedia. In any case, best seasonal greetings to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• My 2p is in the section above. I agree with the OP here and if I had read it before posting above I wouldn't have bothered since it expresses my thoughts on the subject comprehensively. Leaky Caldron 12:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree we should not interrogate inactivity re-sysops. Andrevan@ 22:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Asking them a couple of questions is "interrogation" these days? What the .... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Webster's: "Ask questions of (someone, esp. a suspect or a prisoner) closely, aggressively, or formally." I think your questions are loaded and assume bad faith. We apparently agreed to a policy that these users would be entitled to resysops, no questions asked, and your questioning makes it seem like they are neither routine nor uncontroversial. Andrevan@ 22:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You're funny, seriously. A "suspect or a prisoner"?!! That's clearly not the case. Nor was it aggressive or formal. Honestly, re-read it. No bad faith. I wanted to know what editors who haven't done for four years would need to retain their admin flag for. A simple question. In fact, your aggressive and bad faith approach to my simple question is very educational, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
        • First of all, the operative logical operator in the definition is "OR," meaning only some portion of the definition needs to match. I think it would be tough to argue that you were not "asking closely." That is sufficient but I would also argue "suspect"," i.e. you suspect this old-time editor not to have a need or dare I say ability to edit and use admin tools. So I think you were actually assuming bad faith into my comment, which I can understand because your actions are under something of a cloud currently, and you might feel defensive or attacked. I would say the best way to salvage your position is to simply stop asking the re-sysop gatekeeper questions. I've been an admin since 2004, and I think someone who was trusted to wield a mop in 2008, would do fine here in 2012. But my opinion isn't strictly relevant, as the policy consensus supported a non-controversial routine resysop without close, formalized (by which I mean repeated or copypasta'd) questioning. Andrevan@ 22:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Pardon? My "actions are under something of a cloud"? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not here to "salvage" anything. Your stats are fascinating, but I'm talking about people who haven't actually made any edits for four or five years. Formalised doesn't equate to copy-and-paste, nor did I, check it closely. If you have a problem with me asking questions of people here, fine, talk to me about it, but don't go around claiming I have some kind of "cloud". Happy Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As other have mentioned above I also agree with Floq, unfortunately though being an admin is more about politics and peopleskills these days than about wether they know what to do. I have seen several RFA's over the last few months, mine included, from people who know what to do but have ruffled too many feathers to ever get the tools. So although I agree with what they said, its just not realistic to the current state of things on WP. Until we change the climate and attitude that getting Adminship is akin to becoming Governor of the wiki, we will see things continue to slip and slide down hill. Also unfortunately resysopping has also become a hot potato. I do understand though that most who have been through RFA and passed would not want to endure it again and many who previously passed would not likely pass today, particularly with a long period of inactivity. There is no doubt in my mind that if an RFA were opened for a newly returning former admin, it would be summarily shot down by the community until they get some recent edits under their belt again. Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. And I entirely feel sorry for those going through RFA right now watching editors with no edits in four years just popping by to claim their flag back and actually stating they're avoiding community scrutiny in doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel for this user but the fact remains as you stated in your questions. They haven't edited in 3+ years, what do they need the tools for right now? IMO there is nothing wrong with having them edit for a little bit to get their wheels again. A lot has changed in three years (we used to link all the dates for one). I'm not saying that a user would intentionally do something wrong, but they might do something they think is right, based on three year old knowledge, and it turn out to be wrong. Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing with this is discouraging user activity. If our email campaign brings back some old editors to help out with backlogs, that is fantastic. We should be encouraging readminning. If a user comes back after 4 years inactivity, asks for his admin tools back, and then contributes to the project, that's great! The difficulty of RFA essentially equates to an optimization problem. It's tough to separate out users who will make good admins from those who are simply passing through, and this problem has become tougher over the years as Wikipedia has become more prominent -- which is why RFA has become so cutthroat. Most people consider RFA to be somewhat unforgiving, but the system is reflecting the will of the community. However, a delicate policy decision was reached on the inactivity resysops, which as a bureaucrat you must recognize and honor. We agreed not to make these users go through RFA again, just as no user is required to submit to a recall request for re-RFA unless the arbitration committee has determined there is a policy violation in editing. Andrevan@ 23:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am absolutely not saying they should have to go back through RFA, because that is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. What I am saying is after more than a year of inactivity and especially when you get into the 3+ years range, some minimal new edit history would be a positive. I also agree that if we can get some folks back that would be great as well but at the same time we need to be addressing the things that made them leave in the first place (but that is another discussion). As far as I can tell there has been almost no effort put into doing this. Also on the just passing through comment. That has nothing to do with it. I have been here for years and have amassed more edits spread across more areas than all but a few users (like 10 I think last count) and I have been told repeatedly I don't have the right temperment for admin because I have no problem telling users that don't listen the to the polite way where they can stick it, that they are wrong and I have no problem telling people they should be enforcing policy rather than covering for their buddy. Because of that I am as well liked as a Raggae band at a Klu Klux Klan rally. That is largely the reason I don't edit much anymore. This place is too emotionally draining and more and more a waste of time if I am expected to do all the work so that others can implement the changes and take the credit. Especially with a large number of admins having SHS (Swelled Head Syndrome) (not all of course, there are a lot of good ones too). Back to the point. TRM already stated that the user would most likely get the tools back after the 24 hours so this is all really just extra banter. Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noting I'm not familiar with your case and I didn't intend to imply you were unfit for RFA. My general free advice is to keep editing and work on whatever it is that rubs people the wrong way. Andrevan@ 23:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken. Its not your fault. I was born without that filter most people have between the brain and the mouth. :-) Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Those who feel the need to question note (and state), quite correctly, that the responses to the questions do not affect the procedure of the resysop. Why then, is it necessary to ask those questions before the resysop is completed? Whether or not you believe that the questions asked above were overly confrontational, surely everyone can agree that the same questions asked on a user talk page just under the "here's your bit back" message would be much less so? The only reasons I can think of are if the questioners wish the answers would affect the process, which is not the correct way to alter policy, or that the questioners don't want to wait for the returning admin to potentially go inactive again, which makes the 'it's just a friendly question, you don't have to answer' ethos ring a bit hollow. Why is it necessary to ask these questions during the period when it could be (mis)interpreted as interrogation? Happy‑melon 19:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well I didn't think the questions were a big deal. Clearly the resolute silence from those being resysopped and the accusations levelled at me by a number of editors and other 'crats here seems to indicate otherwise. As I've said a few times, I did, on each occasion when asking these questions, reassure the candidate that the procedural resysop was still likely to go ahead. Of course, one could argue that these candidates should be fully commensurate with our current policies and would know that the questions were simply that, questions, not an inquisition or an interrogation or whatever other hyperbolic description of the simple questions have been so far, and that answering them would be polite, or even declining to answer them would be polite (and admin-like), not just to stonewall them. Not to worry, I'll avoid the board from now on until things calm down a bit, although it seems from the various comments above, I'm not alone in wondering what the answers to the questions were, and why they weren't answered at any point. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the 3 year rule

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.

---

Ok, after seeing it in action, I'd like to propose (under the spirit of WP:CCC, that the rule we enacted suggesting that admins (and bureaucrats) who, for whatever reason, had the tools removed (either voluntarily or involuntarily), and have 3 years of inactivity requiring an Rfa (or RfB) to re-request the tools subsequent to that - be overturned, and such individuals may re-request here at WP:BN, as was the case prior to the 3 year rule.

So to be clear, the recent proposals to automatically require an RfA (or RfB) merely due to inactivity is overturned. - jc37 04:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposer. - jc37 04:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not the three year rule; this is the grace period before the three year rule comes into effect. --Rschen7754 04:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the rule was very recently agreed to and when the rule comes into effect it will cut the number of cases like those. The above discussions are to me proof that this rule is wise. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - consensus can change, but the three year rules haven't even come into effect yet that's how recent it was passed. I actually think the recent discussion shows we should shorten the inactivity period before requiring an RfX, but there weren't consensus for that last time round. KTC (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Why? I mean, I've read the better part of the above threads, but I feel like a proposal like this requires a detailed rationale. In the words of Denzel Washington in Philadelphia, tell it to me like I'm a four-year old. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Transitional arrangements have been fouled up resulting in a justifiably pissed off returning editor - that's all. No need for more drama. Leaky Caldron 11:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problem appears to be of transitional arrangements, and perhaps messages posted to talk pages or email (not) sent. Old admins approaching three years of complete inactivity might be better advised to keep active by editing, instead of posting first at WP:BN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The last week (and the next week) are just part of the process due to giving a grace period. The real issues have been with admin who wouldn't have been able to reapply since it was over 3 years, and as Sno points out, kind of shows why the rule makes sense. Things will be back to normal in exactly one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This change is a good idea and the lack of response to the talk page notes and emails (we've had what, 10-15 ex-admins total show up out of ~400 notified) is also evidence it was a good idea. MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We need this rule. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:41, 26 December 2012 (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.

Draft RFC

I'm drafting an RFC at User:MBisanz/Resysopping to help fix some of the concerns regarding the "under the cloud" standard. I'll probably move it somewhere in the projectspace in the coming week, but wanted to drop a note here so people can have a chance to add to it before I do so. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was bound to happen, we can't have bureaucrats without bureaucracy!:-) Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop request for MatthewUND

Fellow Wikipedians, I'm asking to be resysopped. I used to be a very active Wikipedian, but the distractions of life got in the way in the last few years. I intend to return to the project in the near future and I would hate to not have the admin tools. I don't want to feel that I have to "start all over" if you can understand that. Thanks! MatthewUND^(talk) 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any issues, per the current resysop approach. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRM that I know of no issue under the present policy that would preclude resysopping. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no issues which would prevent the bit being returned. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done We'd be delighted to have you back as a contributor, not to mention administrator. --Dweller (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! MatthewUND^(talk) 07:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)