The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, Bs! I'm back after an absence and I'm requesting admin status to return to some gnomish work. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, compliments or complaints. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!19:32, 24 October 2018 (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.
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.
Your behaviour before handing in the bit was shocking and inappropriate. I hope you have taken some time to reflect on your approach and will avoid such actions in the future. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Kudpung left me a message on my talk page accusing me of making personal attacks at him, I'll clarify my comment. I'm concerned with three things: how he responded to a simple and non-confrontational request from GorillaWarfare, how he then created drama by withdrawing support from an unrelated wikiproject and left messages on multiple talk pages about it, and most of all, how he refuses to recognize that his actions were inappropriate and apologize for them.
I don't see any policy-based reason to block his resysop, nor do I believe in removing people because they made a mistake (or a continuing series of mistakes in this case). But if it is appropriate to welcome people back on this venue, then it should also be appropriate to flag serious concerns. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to echo the comments of my colleague above, and too hope we don't see a repeat of such behaviour - TNT💖06:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
While I believe in my heart that this is behavior unbecoming of being an admin, I see no policy-based reasoning to deny this resysop request. --Rschen775400:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
✓ Circuumnavigated all the way to en.Wikiversity to request a enwiki desysop away from prying eyes (v:en:Special:Diff/1905766)
An interesting way to go about things, to say the least... I bear no ill will towards you, which is why I hope you'll carefully consider the path you seem intent on following. Everybody could use a bit more zen. Ben · Salvidrim!✉07:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: regarding the wv posting, Kudpung asked to have access removed off-wiki, I asked for a posting somewhere to confirm the access removal and suggested that as an option, it was linked in the rights log. — xaosfluxTalk11:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional insight. This actually only further confirms that the desysop was intentionally discreet, presumably to avoid any discussion of clouds or other silliness. And hey, for what it's worth, it may well turn out to have been the best decision, but I still think it's worth noting, at the very least as an explanation to people who can't find the usually-expected BN resignation thread. :) Ben · Salvidrim!✉12:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, neither is this conversation appropriate here; this belongs to user talk pages or relevant administrative noticeboards. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Alex here. These issues do not build a cloud, more a WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. If you wish to take them further, there are processes to do that, starting at Kudpung's talk page. I see no reason that we should not re-sysop after 24 hours. WormTT(talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
While I would say too that these issues certainly don't lead to a cloud, though Kudpung's talk would be a better place to do so, I think it is reasonable for people to express their concerns/advice in the fora where Kudpung is requesting resyopping (and thus again becoming an admin with high standards of conduct expected), and one could as well say that the people saying "welcome back" (who are not crats) should do it on Kudpung's talk rather than here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure yet if it is appropriate or not. Comments so far are alluding to conduct that may or may not be relevant to this request. WJBscribe(talk)11:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I confess that I am finding it hard to follow the comments above, and don't have time to dig through the contrib histories of those involved today. Could someone please provide a succinct explanation of the circumstances that lead up to Kudpung giving up the tools? Were there any pending complaints at any noticeboards/ indications that a case might be submitted to ArbCom? I would also appreciate any comments @GorillaWarfare: may wish to make in relation to this request. WJBscribe(talk)11:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Let me explain... No, there is too much. Let me sum up:
@WJBscribe: I did not follow any possible pending complaints at the time, regarding the actual removal Kudpung contacted me by email simply requesting to have access removed - I asked to have a posting anywhere and suggested the wv page as a possible option, though I could have just said 'per email request' as we have no formal procedure for how someone must request removal of their own access. — xaosfluxTalk12:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung and I rub each other the wrong way, I think. Perhaps competing for position of Official Cranky Old Man of WP. Still, I think the question isn't "Is he a sufficiently great admin and human being", nor is it "was he inexplicably rude a couple of times, and generally grumpy frequently". The only question is, was anything brewing at the time he requested a desysop that would lead us to think there was any kind of risk to his admin bit (ArbCom, recall, long block) was coming, and the answer is no. Maybe an ANI thread, maybe a trout, maybe a warning to tone down the needless aggression, but no reason to think anything more was imminent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reviewed the sequence of events helpfully summarized by Galobtter. While it could be said that Kudpung resigned in "controversial circumstances" (the only relevant criteria mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal), their administrative actions were not called into question at the time and accordingly, their administrative status did not seem in jeopardy i.e. they were not "evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions" (the criteria in place at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat#Restoration of permissions). Please consider this as your semi-regular reminder that these two pages are somewhat out of sync and that bureaucrats should generally defer to policy pages (Wikipedia:Administrators) over information pages (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats); accordingly, the guidance at the policy page should be clarified to reflect actual practice as it is presently rather vague. –xenotalk14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
To paraphrase my comments at a similar resysop request from July, we usually don't desysop (or refuse to resysop) admins for being an asshole even though it would tend to be a reason to fail RfA. Or, to phrase that much more diplomatically, conduct that would sink an RfA (like not getting along well with others) does not necessarily mean a desysop could or would happen. Whether that's good or bad, it appears to have been the status quo pretty much since day one... Maxim(talk)14:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Any new rule that leads to refusing to resysop admins will lead to admins not choosing voluntary desysoping. This is undesirable from a security standpoint; inactive admins who retain the tools are less likely to notice someone compromising their account. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Old friends like Alex and WTT should not try to curtail open discussion here. Having the temerity to suggest that Kudpung's Talk Page is a suitable venue is absolute twaddle. Any mention of the concerns raised here would lead to an instant TP ban and guaranteed accusations of making a personal attack [1]. Maybe you do not know him as well as you think. Leaky Caldron17:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Since someone requested my comment, I don't actually have any issues with Kudpung being resysopped. I agree with those who have described his behavior shortly before resigning the tools using terms like "shocking and inappropriate", but I also don't think that he would've been desysopped for it and I don't think his resignation (although weirdly roundabout, as Salvidrim has pointed out) was under a cloud. I just hope he won't repeat the behavior, although I'm also not terribly heartened by his comment on Ajraddatz's talk page. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the additional comments, and in particular to GorillaWarfare. It does not appear that there is a basis for refusing to return the tools. However, I strongly support those who have condemned Kudpung's actions before he resigned and recently on Ajraddatz's talk page. Everyone can misspeak in anger or under stress. That said, if such behaviour were to continue, it would in my view be incompatible with adminship on this project and ought to be referred to ArbCom. WJBscribe(talk)23:58, 25 October 2018 (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.
That said, just because it isn’t required doesn’t mean you can’t do it. Feel free to (neutrally) publicise int-admin requests on relevant noticeboards. WJBscribe(talk)01:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
As an IAdmin I welcome cross-posting but would advise against making it a procedural requirement. It will make more sense to make announcements about successful appointments than to advertise the request, given that the whole philosophy of the new process is to prevent the assessment from becoming a gladiator arena by giving 100% discretion to bureaucrats (which I agree with). Deryck C.11:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, all, I'd like to request IAdmin for myself. I'm currently working on implementing the legacy editing toolbar that some users prefer (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Support_ends_for_the_2006_wikitext_editor), and several of the adjunct scripts are in the MW space, such as MediaWiki:RefToolbarLegacy.js. Technically, I could just fork them into my userspace, but it's probably better to actually directly edit these (currently non-functional AFAICT) scripts and fix them. Thanks!
It's not "conspicuous failure" when the WMF have for two years said that they were deliberately dropping support. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Writ Keeper has failed to fill out form I-835, in triplicate, and sign a written endorsement stating that we get to blame them for all problems that occur as an interface admin. ;-) —CYBERPOWER(Around)02:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Forms should be signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters. 1. — xaosfluxTalk04:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Careful there, Xaosflux, else someone might feed your grandmother to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. I don't see you carrying a towel, either. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
WK rules. IAdmin is setting your sights too low, though. Crats, please just flip the "founder" switch and be done with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I write with great pleasure to request to be the first person in history to return my interface administrator flag (on the English Wikipedia, and most likely all of Wikimedia as well).
Yesterday, User:MusikBot II was deployed on Wikipedia:Geonotices. Since my use of IAdmin privileges has so far focused solely on geonotices, the successful deployment of MusikBot II means that I no longer expect to need IAdmin privileges on en.wp regularly. The fact that the new policy allows me to regain IAdmin whenever I need it gives me confidence that returning my bit is the right thing for me to do now. (It's like borrowing and returning a book and it's fun!)
Thank you! :D You've been a great help as well. I'll note the bot has not officially been approved yet, but it seems likely that it will pass the BRFA. The trial ends on November 21. Cheers — MusikAnimaltalk21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You're both welcome! In the unlikely event that anything breaks, I'm sure I will come back to ask for flag and get working --Deryck C.22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This bot is no longer needed as the mediation committee has been shut down and marked as historical. Some of the MedCom members mentioned "the bots" so there may be more, I'll keep looking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2018 (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.
Thank you! Everything is OK, but I will not be able to devote as much time to the project as I had intended. --Boson (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Resysop request (Al Ameer son)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
I've just globally locked Esanchez7587, as he was clearly going rogue after few years of inactivity, which smelled like a compromised admin account.
This is just a notification, and no desysop was performed on my level: whether or not to desysop is your call. (Since they're locked, they cannot perform any actions. Hence no desysop from me.)
Global lock is sufficient at the moment as he cannot do anything more - just waiting on other arbs to reply regarding anything else. WormTT(talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
AntiCompositeNumber is correct. Since they cannot log in (either using Web or via API) nothing can be done with the account. That's why I just locked the account, not desysop'ing. — regards, Revi14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion has been fragmented, making it difficult to follow. The situation as a whole raises questions of the proper boundaries between bureaucrats, the arbitration committee, stewards, the community as a whole, and to a lesser extent the election coordinators and election commission since the initial dispute took place on a page related to the elections.
I believe it is important that exceptional actions such as this be noted here so that all bureaucrats are aware of them. I also believe that further discussion with the wider community would be valuable and would hope that Maxim will participate. If this page is not the most suitable venue for that discussion, perhaps links to more suitable pages could be provided.
It is my view that, to a far greater extent than other activities at Wikipedia, the role of bureaucrats is narrowly defined. As the name "bureaucrats" implies, we are expected to follow process, and implement the wishes of the community. The original "bureaucrat" permission gave only the ability to set the admin bit, not the ability to remove it. The ability to remove the bit came much later, and was intended to allow the English Wikipedia community to be self-sufficient in handling de-sysoppings for inactivity and when part of an arbitration proceeding. Original policy discussions took place at this RFC in 2011. Notably, the provision to allow de-adminship when an admin is behaving disruptively was closed as WP:SNOW after 15-1 opposition. The provision allowing bureaucrats to de-sysop only those accounts where there is evidence that the account has been compromised barely passed, and has not since been amended. The intent at the time was to reserve these exceptional emergency cases to the stewards.
There is further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 4#Emergency desysopping (v3) where several participants specifically mention that they could support bureaucrats invoking WP:IAR to de-sysop an admin under certain circumstances. The discussion did not have wide participation, however, and did not lead to any sort of consensus.
I would also like to observe that I have reviewed Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause and do not believe that there has been any previous example of a bureaucrat de-sysopping anyone for cause in the absence of clear instructions from the Arbitration Committee. The most recent similar situations were in 2006-2008 and were performed by Jimbo Wales (talk·contribs), and were controversial. I may have missed some cases since those that were ultimately resolved with the affected individual being re-sysopped are not indexed anywhere and are therefore difficult to find. The Uninvited Co., Inc.22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe I included a link to the case at the top of the section. Do you believe that discussion should take place on the case pages? The Uninvited Co., Inc.22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been assuming that the case would discuss the role of bureaucrats and have been reserving my (non-privileged, ordinary editor) analysis for its workshop. However if the bureaucrats would like to have the discussion here, then that's fine, too. Thanks for your historical info. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the way Maxim handled it, immediately and publicly posting their reasoning to the arbitration committee, was sufficient to make the IAR perfectly permissible, even for a crat. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that the so-called 'emergency' (whether or not it was an emergency- it had been 3 hours since the reblock and Fred has not unblocked himself again?) has subsided, shouldn't the permissions be restored to ultimately be decided on by the committee? Barring an injunction, temporary desysop motion, or similar... –xenotalk23:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
While a desysopping in this situation is, in itself, not unreasonable or unprecedented, it should not be overlooked that crats quite simply do not have the authority to perform discretionary desysoppings, even in emergency situations. If there is a pressing reason to do so, meaning something so serious and urgent that it cannot wait for either Arbcom or a Steward to act, then sure, an IAR desysopping would be reasonable for the protection of the project. However, that's not what happened. Self-unblocking is an abuse of the tools, repeatedly doing so is an additional offense, and yes, these acts make one subject to desysopping. But, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, it's not a bright line for desysopping, and while Fred was rightfully desysopped, nothing fundamentally gives crats the right to make that sort of judgment call, even though they have the technical ability. Yes, IAR is a thing, but I don't think it is all that reasonable to invoke IAR in order to usurp the authority to desysop, especially in a non-emergency situation where there is no risk of harm to the project. Tool misuse is scandalous, and tempers on all sides were already heated. An IAR desysop was an overreaction, and an understandable one that we can certainly let slide, but it was unnecessary, and while I have great respect for and confidence in our crats, including Maxim, and we should not let crats get into the habit of invoking IAR to perform discretionary desysops. Swarm talk 03:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:VPPOL might be a better place to ask questions like, "Should bureaucrats be allowed to perform desysopings without direction from Arbcom?", and "If so, when?". WP:BN is a little backwater. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I've said my 2c on the case page already, but wanted to add support to what Swarm said. I think it would be appropriate for a bureaucrat to do an emergency desysop IAR-style if the situation was ongoing, but once the threat of tool misuse (and particularly tool misuse that would harm the project) has passed, it should only be up to ArbCom to take action. I think it got struck in my comment on the case page, but I'll also reiterate that my concerns are not with Maxim or his actions, but rather what should be done in future cases. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I too support Maxim's action. The situation had been pulling in more and more different administrators, and it was clear that Fred Bauder was not interested in discussing things since he was simply unblocking himself within minutes. Maxim's action stabilized things and reduced disruption to the project. I wouldn't want to see bureaucrats routinely taking it upon themselves to de-sysop administrators that they deemed unruly, but this was an unusual situation. So in this particular case, I believe that Maxim showed good judgment. --Elonka08:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I only recently became aware of this cluster bleep, but after looking into it a bit I will add my endorsement (fwiw) to Maxim's IAR intervention. Swarm's analysis is solid, but this was a highly unusual circumstance. This kind of IAR action can be tolerated because it was immediately subject to review and could easily and quickly have been overturned. IAR is always going to be a judgement call, and I tend to take a very conservative view of it. (Invoking IAR should be safe legal and rare.) In this case I think the call was a reasonable one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If we want to emphasize that having the admin bit is not a big deal, then having it temporarily removed should similarly not be a big deal. I am in favour of bureaucrats having some leeway to make judgement calls about temporarily desysopping particularly to stop flagrant misuse and wheel-warring in the cold light of day. If it's found that concerns were unfounded, they can just re-sysop the account in question, no harm done. I think in this case the concern was Fred would continue to wheel war (we will never, of course, know if he would have done or not, there's little to be gained from speculating on this), and so I'll just add my little, near-meaningless endorsement of Maxim's actions here. Fish+Karate09:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The psychosocial effects, for better or for worse, endure long after the bit is returned. In a project whose foundation is voluntary collaboration, that's a big deal. See FairProcessThe Uninvited Co., Inc.13:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Based on early comments lets not continue this here, if someone wants to propose this the right venue can be used - thank you for the replies. — xaosfluxTalk23:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BN is not the best venue, but since we are directly talking about issues realted to the (unblockself) permission - throwing out a feeler: What if we just removed this access from administrators (and perhaps adding it to bureaucrats to deal with issues of rogue admins)? — xaosfluxTalk21:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The number of admins who accidentally block themselves or test blocks on themselves, and have to unblock themselves, far exceeds the number of rogue unblocks. Stephen21:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I would agree. I think the current situation is fine—if you screw up and block yourself or you're doing tests, sure, go ahead and unblock yourself. If someone else blocks you, then even if you think they're way out of line, you appeal the block, you don't just reverse it. Also, I recall some admins who did unblock themselves during the Robdurbar incident because the account was so clearly compromised; they weren't penalized in any way but were instrumental in keeping the problem in check. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Adding a post-close idle thought, Stephen's point made me wonder if there would be a way in pemrs to undo your own selfblock but not other's blocks of you. Ben · Salvidrim!✉00:37, 18 November 2018 (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.
Hello bureaucrats, just noting that Ajraddatz has locked meta:Special:CentralAuth/Garzo as a compromised account. I have run a check locally, and it does appear to be compromised (different continents). I have notified ArbCom, but also posting here. As it is locked, it can't edit currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Ymblanter: agree, as this was an ArbCom ruling I'm expecting that they will do this (as they will need to approve restoration, WMF T&S will unlock when they verify the right person is in control, but it is up to arbcom to determine if Wikipedia:Administrators#Security has been satisfied here for restoration.), @DeltaQuad: perhaps? — xaosfluxTalk22:07, 24 November 2018 (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.
I am nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak and hereby request to have my bit restored. I still have a week to go, so there's no urgency. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Since we dropped our bits at the same time for the same reason and have been inactive the same period, symmetry demands I also request my bit back at the sams time. Thanks SpartazHumbug!21:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm inclined to decline this, referring requester to WP:RFA. The RfC result summarized in WP:ADMIN is awkwardly phrased, however the actual RfC closure has more clarity: admins who have not used the admin tools for a prolonged period (5 years is mentioned) will usually be required to reapply. — xaosfluxTalk19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, its what you get when you have a policy written by a few people. Anyway, even by the strict wording of the policy, this wouldn't qualify: desysop was in December 2014, last logged action was November 2009. That's 5 years. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and with next to no edits in 4 years is unlikely to endear you to the community. You will fail an RFA. Leaky Caldron19:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I was a pretty steady editor, just not always logged in under my User Account. I have been-more or less- "technologically" challenged for the past few years. New desk top is much easier to use than a smart-phone, and as I am now "able" to do more and better cleanup work, I am willing to do so. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm. Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and explaining that the reason you have next to no edits in 4 years is because you've been sockpuppeting is definitely unlikely to endear you to the community. ‑ Iridescent20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless the definition has changed and I've not noticed, I'm sure "sockpuppeteering" is abusive use of multiple accounts or IPs. If Hamster Sandwich has been using alternate accounts and IPs to vandalize or otherwise disrupt then yes, it would be sockpuppeteering but there's no evidence they've done that and I doubt they would openly admit to editing anonymously if they had. While I see it as pointless to edit as an IP if you already have an account, calling it sockpuppetry seems extreme. Acalamari20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hamster Sandwich: Stick around for a few months, make helpful edits (while logged-in) to assure folks that you're up to speed with all of the changes to Wikipedia policy and practice that have occurred since you last adminned, and an RFA will go much better than doing one now without a recent track record. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
commentThis is a perfect example of why re-adminning without an RFA for long inactive sysops is a bad idea: Appearently I have to stand for election again, and I hope I have your vote. I don't even know if people can still solicit help from their WP "friends", but... there it is. I am not blaming Hamster Sandwich at all but it shows the larger problem of giving the bit back/letting legacy admins keep it with their once a year edit but no real participation in a decade. I've been seeing stuff like this pop up a lot lately where someone who rfa'd in 2005 suddenly comes back and hasn't edited since 2007 aside from the required 1/year and has absolutely no understanding of current community consensus, culture or policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done I'm going to mark this declined and encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the underlying policy issues to do so separate from this specific request. As always, please follow the principle of constant respect when dealing with other editors, including those who are new or are returning to the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I must say, the incivility level has really ratcheted up since I was active. To characterize a valid question in this forum as "Swinging by" is demeaning to the project. I would ask you to reign in your impulse to insult and diminish other editors. Furthermore... "Sockpuppet"? "Facepalm"? What was the other comment... oh yes.... the whole "endearment" aspect that has been expressed by two editors here (Or are they really two people? They used the same word! Better check to make sure it's not the same IP address...) . I was not aware that people had to endear themselves. I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount. Am I wrong? ** "Absolutely no understanding" is a pretty sweeping indictment. And suddenly were talking about a decade. I see the revocation of my admin privileges as from 2014. Please try to reign in your impulses towards exaggeration. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
"I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount." Quite correct. So why not just get on with it instead of dishing out accusations? Have you heard of WP:AGF? Leaky Caldron20:31, 28 November 2018 (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.
Question
I noticed that 2FA has been recently pushed through for WP:INTADMIN as an office action. Are Bureaucrat accounts currently required to have 2FA? If not this creates a security hole. Crazynast19:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Not 'yet' at least, WMF is still working on their requirements, along with the mechanics for it. These topics are being currently reviewed by WMF Trust and Safety team along with the development Security group. — xaosfluxTalk20:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have refactored this section as it has become unclear due to a series of tweaks to the inactivity policy. My intent was to express the same policy more clearly.
The text of the 5 year "no admin actions" rule was previously ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to mean that the five years had to occur prior to de-adminship for inactivity. I don't think that was ever the intent, and I've made that clear in the refactoring. There has also been some ambiguity as to whether the two "lengthy inactivity" provisions apply to voluntary resignations as well as to de-adminship for inactivity. I have codified what I understand to be the current practice. Please take a look, and make any corrections you see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: Looking at the RfC, I think that change may not reflect the original intent. The RfC proposal was: "I would therefore propose that any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back, and would need to pass a new RFA to regain the tools". This requires: (a) an admin does not use tools for five years, and (b) is subsequently desysopped. That is, the five years of no logged actions have to happen before the desysopping. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 20:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Glad something positive happened... Initially my reading was "Admins who have been removed due to inactivity can re-apply at Bureaucrats Noticeboard. I was not aware of any further codicil until the comments started coming. Some helpful, others not-so-much... Keep up the good work! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The closing statement may have given rise to the awkwardness but I think the original proposal by Beeblebrox is clear per Kevin above. I would support the current wording by UninvitedCompany but I think that need to be proposed and gain consensus first. -- KTC (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It was a goofy RFC because while there was a clear consensus to do something, it was far less clear exactly what that something was. The original proposal and the closing statement don't match, and there are some conflicting alternative proposals in the comments. Making matters worse there were fewer participats in the discussion, despite this being a policy that affects many people, than there are for a typical RFA that affects one. Finally, I am actually far more concerned that we have a clear policy than I am about the mechanics. The Uninvited Co., Inc.21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi User:Hamster Sandwich. I thought I'd pop up with two hats on. An Arb and a 'crat. As an Arb, I'll say, Arbcom has no jurisdiction over the crats in this matter, and the decision to return tools after inactive is down to WP:RESYSOP and the 'crat's judgement. So, if you ask there, that's what I'll say there too. As a 'crat, however, I'll point out that as much as there's some grey area over an unclear close at an RfC - the RfC was clear that admins should not be automatically returned the tools after a period of lengthy activity. However, even if we were looking at the RESYSOP policy from a year ago [2] before the RfC, it still had provisions for lengthy inactivity. This isn't a new policy, and while it needs to be agreed what the exact numbers should be, your lack of admin activity for such a long period clearly makes you ineligible per the RfC outcome. WormTT(talk) 23:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 1) What exactly would you be asking ArbCom to arbitrate on? 2) Whichever wording the crats goes with, you would not qualify for a re-sysop by simple BN request as you both i) haven't had a logged admin action in the last 5 years and ii) didn't have a logged admin action for 5 years and subsequently desysopped for inactivity. -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have decided that the prospect of reapplying is much too daunting. Although I will never do anything to diminish this project, I will henceforth do nothing to enhance it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems like a bit of a temper tantrum to me. I suspect that if you spent several months becoming familiar again with the site and all the updated policies and guidelines (or spent the time showing that you are familiar with them, if you believe you are already knowledgeable in that area), you wouldn't have too much trouble at an RfA. Since 2009, you haven't even edited the site 100 times, and many of those edits (about 25-30 or so, I didn't do an exact count) are here on this page or in related discussions about you not getting the bit back. You seem far too eager to get the bit for someone with so little recent experience, so I think our decision to decline your request was absolutely the correct one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You were the only one punching. I made an observation of a behavior and offered a suggestion on how to resolve the issue. You resorted to name-calling. Like your edit summary said: there's a difference. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inactive admins for December 2018
The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:
I regularly look these over when posted, just out of curiousity as to how the five-year clause is functioning, and I see soemthing potentially concerning here with Ocee. A look at their logs and contribs shows that really, they went inactive as an admin in 2012, and as an editor in 2016. But they came back in 2017 and made the one edit necessary to keep their tools, and at the same time made one logged action: granting themselves every possible userright they could for no apparent reason.
I'm not suggesting there is any need for any action at this time and it's entirely possible this will never come up, but I wanted to go on record here that while they are technically not within the bounds of the five-year clause the one logged action they took in the last six years seems ridiculous and arbitrary and did nothing of benefit to anyone, including themselves since they have not made a single edit or other action since. I belive the community would object to this user getting their tools back just for the asking should they ask within the window provided. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The question is whether they performed the action or not, not how arbitrary they are. I think ten edits or logs to stay an administrator can also be arbitrary. If you change the line to twenty-five edits or logs a year and twenty of them are user space, is that good enough? This is where it blurs the lines between whether we keep a bright line of activity or whether we are going to be reviewing their actions. — MoeEpsilon21:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said, technically, by the letter fo the rule, this does count as a logged action, and generally we don't have any cause to question the legitimacy of it, but in this case it's different as it seems they knew they were done, adding these userights was the absolute last thing they did on Wikipedia, and it wound up creating work for others as it they cleaned up all the redundant or otherwise useless userrights. There is no reason, ever, that anyone should be self-granting that many userrights at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's the 'notice' requirement that ends up triggering most of this, you can see it in the inactive reports every month, we send out notices, a portion of those notified make an edit or log, then go away. But that's the rules and this isn't the forum to fix that. Please feel free to follow up at WT:ADMIN if you want to change the inactivity policy. — xaosfluxTalk02:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I do agree the excess user rights were mostly unnecessary, for a couple reasons. In the same vein though, I think the letter of the rule would also mean they are re-sysopped if they return within the next two years assuming there doesn't appear to be any other concerns. Bureaucrats are more bound by consensus (like RFA) and policy rather than making judgment calls. Xaosflux is correct in that it comes mostly with the notifications of inactivity. The fault for this lies at the policy that created the token edit/log loophole, not at those who use it. The way it is designed right now, though, would probably result in resysop. — MoeEpsilon02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
While yes, the letter of the rules says Ocee can be resysopped on request, Beeblebrox is right - making one edit and one logged action only to keep one's adminship while doing absolutely nothing to actually help with the admin workload is gaming the system. Admin tools should be for those who genuinely use them, and nobody else. And no, this is not the place to fix them, but our admin activity rules are not fit for purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: in these cases the policy's intent could mean two things, and GAME would only apply to one. On the one hand it could be "are you still using this mop, if not thanks for your service we'll put it away" (this can be GAME'd) - but on the other it can simply be "are you still alive and have your keyring?" in which case the token action says they are. — xaosfluxTalk16:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to be clear that I am certainly not blaming the 'crats in any way for this situation and om not proposing any policy change be made her at BN. Basically I'm "pre-objecting" in the event that they do return and ask for resysop. Whether that carries any weight or not I thought this needed pointing out, and can be dug back up for discussion during the usual "24 hour hold" if and when then do ask to be reinstated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that you make a valid point insofar as there are some users who make isolated edits strictly to maintain a facade of activity without making a meaningful effort to re-engage with the community. The original 1-year inactivity policy was written specifically to allow us to remove people from the rolls who had lost interest in Wikipedia and had no intention of returning. In this regard it has been successful. The addition of the 3-year "lengthy inactivity provision" and the requirement for logged actions within 5 years were efforts to insist that administrators maintain some level of attachment to the project. They are mechanical and easily gamed, but at least they show an intent to stay engaged. If we were to tighten the requirements -- say, require 10 logged admin actions every six months -- inactive people who want to hold onto their adminship will simply be sure to meet the new requirements. Rather than tightening the activity requirements, I personally would rather see a policy that requires people to make a reasonable number of edits (50 or 100) within a month or two of asking for their bit back. The Uninvited Co., Inc.17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
10 logged admin actions every six months (with the proviso that they can't be trivial like deleting pages in your own userspace or repeatedly deleting and undeleting the same file) might be nice because it would require something useful to the project. --B (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I've seen obvious gaming before, like replying to the talk page message saying "I guess I better make an edit then" and going away again, but I've never seen something like this before. I'm not arguing (in this discussion anyway) that we tighten the standards but rather that in the case of something like this, where there is a reasonable argument that their one logged action constitutes not only gaming but abuse of admin tools that we basically don't count it. 'Crats are not really empowered to make that decision on their own, which is why I raised it. It doesn't need a formal rule becuause it's exceedingly rare and in fact I can't recall a case like this, ever. Even more puzzling is that the one action is from before the five-year clause was even proposed, so what the hell he thought he was doing and why is obscure at best. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Friendly reminder that I like to drop in any such discussion: Not everyone considers adminship to be so important as you all seem to. People get busy with their lives and stop performing sysop actions here regularly, but might not want to close the door on coming back to contribute in the same way they did before. I don't see it as gaming for an inactive admin to make the mandatory one edit on their talk page after being notified, I see it as them saying "yes, I still exist, and I might come back someday". A good volunteer organization finds ways to re-engage people after they leave, not increase the barriers to them returning and resuming their past work. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point in a general discussion about activity requirements, but I don't think it is particualrly relevant in this case, where the admins one logged action in the last six years was entirely inappropriate and made needless busywork for their felllow admins to clean it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
ALso, while editors are welcome to come back, someone who's only made 150 edits in the last twelve yearsshouldn't be coming straight back as an admin. The rules and culture of today's Wikipedia bear little relation to the Wikipedia of Wild West days (I found it a severe culture shock coming back, and I wasn't gone anywhere near as long); I don't consider it remotely unreasonable to ask someone coming back after that long away to demonstrate that the community still trusts them. ‑ Iridescent23:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is, however, just a 24 hour wait for someone desysopped for not making the "gaming" edit. I agree that it shouldn't be a big deal, but part of not being a big deal is having a smooth transition not only from on to off but from off to on. ~ Amory(u • t • c)01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
UninvitedCompany, which is why Wikipedia has so few non-negotiable rules. I don't think anyone's arguing for a wholesale rewriting of the desysop policy; all we're saying is that in extreme cases the crats should consider an IAR refusal to regrant user rights in circumstances where the rights would ordinarily be granted automatically but there's an obvious consensus that there would be potential problems in doing so. ‑ Iridescent21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:nod: I don't think the 'crats are ever compelled to act. To refrain from performing an action does not require invocation of IAR. I would hope (and expect) that users that have been away for a while would be thoughtful about how they re-engage. The Uninvited Co., Inc.21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, this is one situation where people falling over each other to do the work is greatly appreciated. Thank you both for being so quick to action this. ~ Rob13Talk04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Orangemike: welcome back. Please contact the Arbitration Committee for restoration of access, it is up to them to determine that you are in compliance with project policies for account security and request your access be restored. This is normally a swift process and once they approve there will be no delay here. — xaosfluxTalk02:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
^ This course of action makes sense to me. Up to you all, naturally, though I'd wait for him to actually get into his account before reapplying rights. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Edit: I am apparently blind. Sorry! :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has verified Orangemike(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) is back in control of their account via multiple methods. The committee therefore reinstates their administrative user right, which was previously removed by motion. The committee also urges him to enable 2 factor authentication on his account.
Supporting: Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, BU Rob13, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, KrakatoaKatie
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.
An arbitration case regarding Fred Bauder has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Fred Bauder is admonished for engaging in an edit war on his candidate's questions page. Future edit-warring or disruptive behavior may result in further sanctions.
For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback, Fred Bauder is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Boing! said Zebedee is cautioned for blocking Fred Bauder while actively involved in an edit war with him at the time. He is further cautioned to avoid edit-warring, even in cases where the other editor is editing disruptively.
Editors should seek assistance from the Electoral Commission for issues that arise on pages related to the Arbitration Committee Elections that cannot be easily resolved (excluding, for example, obvious vandalism). The Arbitration Committee reaffirms that the Electoral Commission has been tasked with the independent oversight of the Arbitration Committee Elections. Matters which are of a private matter should be referred to the Arbitration Committee or functionaries team as normal.
Hi everyone. I'd like to put in a request to remove admin rights from my account. Its been years since I've been active here, and I've mostly been making token contributions from this account just to keep my options open should I be able to come back in an admin capacity. That may still happen one day, but considering the amount of things that've changed since my original RFA in 2005, it's probably best that I just go through the procedure all over again.
While I haven't been able to contribute as an admin, I have closely watched Wikipedia evolve and grow over the course of... wow, its been fifteen years since I started contributing as an anon. I want to thank everyone who has given their time to this site, which I still use literally on a daily basis. I know it's a lot of work, and sometimes a lot of frustration, but this is the best that the internet has to offer. The collaboration and quality you see here is something you can't find anywhere else. Thanks to every editor, admin, bureaucrat, and employee who have made this such a great site. Even though I've been inactive for years, it's still a little sad to officially say goodbye to adminship. But I know I'm leaving this site in good hands.
Dealing with low-activity administrators through discussion
Rather than set ever-higher minimum activity standards, I believe we should think critically about what we are trying to accomplish with desysops for inactivity, and deal with this through discussion and consensus with the affected individuals rather than trying to come up with a mechnical means of deciding who gets to keep their bit. Let's start with the real-world reasons for the housekeeping of what we call "inactive" users, and with the problems posed by overdoing it:
Accounts of people who have left the project completely are particularly susceptible to compromise because the account owner is not present to meet evolving security standards (password uniquiness, 2fa) and is not here to notice a "silent compromise." (This was the main rationale for the original policy).
There is perhaps a greater likelihood of someone who no longer has strong ties to the project transfering their dormant admin account to another person, in return for money or other personal gain.
On the other hand, people returning to Wikipedia after a long absence may face unique barriers at WP:RFA, because friends come and go but enemies accumulate over time.
Now, the problem of people making rash administrative actions because they're out of touch with the project has so far been a hypothetical one. Our more serious administrator conduct problems have involved some long-time contributors who have never really left, and some relatively newly minted admins where, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that adminship was never really right for them. I would challenge anyone who believes returning admins are a problem to identify a case that is an example of this.
I really do believe that the oddball corner cases used as examples are outliers. I believe that the best way to handle them is for someone to contact the individual affected, just as I have done with Revolving Bugbear, and encourage them to re-engage or resign as they see fit. Ideally the person doing the asking would be someone who they interacted with in the past. The best outcome would be to get people to rethink the role of Wikipedia in their lives -- and the difference that they could make here -- and return. The message left should reflect that. Now, if we do that, and we look back a year later and see that they haven't resigned, and haven't re-engaged meaningfully, and still won't resign when asked, we can address it. I will be surprised if it happens.
I will add that if anyone is keeping a list of admins who have been marginally attached for a very long time but who are gaming the system, I'll volunteer to contact the ones I know. UninvitedCompany23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: Below is a list of admins whose last 20 edits go back to 2012. I am not accusing any of them of gaming the system, or indeed of doing anything wrong at all, just noting that they are not very active at the moment, if you want to reach out and engage with them. 28bytes (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
And here is a list of admins whose last 100 edits go back to 2009. As above, there's no suggestion that they're doing anything wrong; I'm just providing a list of folks relevant to the discussion you can follow up with if you wish. 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I checked a couple of these who I know best and will continue to work throu:::gh the list on the morrow. Some are still engaged and making non-trivial edits and actions, just not very many of them. I'll think on this but I think in most cases just a gentle nudge along the lines of "there's plenty to do..." may be the best way to solve the problem. UninvitedCompany01:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: you may want to look for matches against this list as well, which is admins that have no logged actions (any actions - even a 'thanks') in over a year - or perhaps focus on the 13 that haven't had any logged actions in over 10 years. — xaosfluxTalk02:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
If nobody's mentioned it lately, thaks for your attention to this, I'm sure it isn't the funnest job in the world.
And thanks as well to Uninvited Company for stepping up here, even if it doesn't go anywhere it's nice to know someone is looking into it and you seem like a good fit for the task, your message to Revolving Bugbear was on point but not confrontational, a good tone for this sort of business. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I've thought on this and believe that the best way forward is to put together a page or WikiProject with a working title of "administrative retention" or similar with a primary goal of encouraging less active administrators to re-engage with the project. After all, the best possible outcome for enwp is to have these talented people back as active, energetic, engaged contributors. That's not going to happen in every case, but the possibilities for success increase as we work our way up the list through people who are, for lack of a better turn of phrase, "less inactive." There are some common reasons for people to drift away (c.f. some of the pages and essays on admin burnout) that we can address. There are a handful of very specific changes to the nature of the project since the 2009 era (picking a date about ten years ago out of the air; in general, people on the lists above were most active during that time) that are worth covering. And there are chronically understaffed areas where it is relatively easy for experienced contributors to make a difference without becoming engaged in high-conflict drama that leads to burnout.
Once that's done I'd like to link to it as a resource in individual discussions with less active administrators. I believe strongly that the messages should be individually crafted, but to make it easier, I'd like to be able to link to this more general information.
A desirable side effect of all this is that for people who aren't going to re-engage, these resources should help them to clarify their thinking, and encourage them to find a way to leave the project on a positive, mutually respectful note. UninvitedCompany11:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a positive idea, and if you do start up such a project, please do add me as it's something I'd like to help with. I do think that we'd need to have something written, explaining why dormant admin accounts are a problem - I understand the current concerns about hijacked accounts, but there are far more issues with dormant accounts. They over inflate the number of admins figure, and give a feeling of complacency that there are enough people to do the job. This in turn will lead to RfA being a more unpleasant area - it's easy to have over-inflated standards if there are enough people to pick up the work. Talking to admins who are less active is a great idea, discussing the likelihood of their return and helping encourage that return. If they are unable to commit to returning, then discussing the harm of keeping the tool. WormTT(talk) 11:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I've started contacting people (on talk + email) as noted in the list above. I'm going slow, deliberately, because I'm writing individual notes. UninvitedCompany17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Security as the main concern for inactive administrators
The main issue that concerns me is that inactive sysop accounts are ripe for being stolen without anybody noticing. The most complete solution is to find a developer and create software to do the following:
Scan all sysop account passwords to see if they match any of the compromised passwords in the HaveIBeenPwned.com (HIBP) list. For our purposes, we call any matching password a “weak password.” This testing can be done with k-anonymous hashing to maintain password security during scanning.
Deactivate any sysop account that’s using a weak password.
Email the sysops that have been deactivated and invite them to recover their account if they wish to continue.
It's funny, just the last couple of days I've been looking at some of the things I had been working on, checking my Wikipedia-related emails, and went through the last major issue that lead me to decrease and eventually withdraw from most Wikipedia activity in the first place. It's somewhat sad to see how many of the folks that I used to interact with are no longer active, having retired or, like me, perform the occasional edit. At the same time, it is heartening to find at least a few people still being very active. I do check Wikipedia all the time and still make minor edits, but it was a bit eye-opening to go back into some of the conflicts (the majority of which was off-wiki) to see why I started to withdraw in the first place. I do follow (somewhat) the progression via avenues such as the Signpost and the Admin's Newsletter, but most of my activity these days is restricted to the mainspace, some of it while not logged in.
If security is your main issue, perhaps all these low-activity admins (including myself) require is a strong suggestion to enable 2FA. It might be problematic to see which admins have strong passwords (or perhaps not, since Jehochman is recommending the deactivation of any admin with a weak password), but it shouldn't be too much of an issue to check which admins have enabled 2FA. --Deathphoenixʕ15:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
As I've spoken about at length in the above threads, I belive security is of course a valid concern, but that out-of-touch admins is an equal concern. The community would seem to lean in that direction as well, as evidenced by the passage of the five-year clause earlier this year. No amount of additional security can educate an admin who hasn't actually done admin work in half a decade or more on what current standards and practices are. We've had 2 arbcom cases this year related to users with barely-used advanced permissions suddenly barging around using their tools as weapons, and much drama was had. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany: I assume one of them is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder, but it's not like the problem here was Fred being unaware of the current rules. Most certainly he knew that unblocking yourself is about the biggest no-no there is and has been for a long, long time - at least since whenever it became impossible to delete the main page. Any problems of someone not being aware of current norms, but being willing to learn them, can be resolved in a brief message on their talk page. The problem is when someone doesn't care what the current norms are (which has nothing to do with the age of their account). --B (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's what I would have guessed, but Fred was never inactive by any sort of reasonable definition of activity. Less active than he once was, sure, but he's consistently had several hundred edits a year, and multiple logged admin actions. The reason this is important is that I don't think there's any sort of pattern of problems that returning admins pose that are not posed to just as great a degree by admins that have never been inactive. UninvitedCompany23:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceccropia's last 100 edits go back to 2011, and Pakaran to 2014. Perhaps reaching out to them an encuring they have enabled 2FA or perhaps have ensured their accounts are secure would be a good idea. --Cameron11598(Talk)19:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia’s implementation of 2FA is not yet robust. It’s very easy to get permanently locked out. I don’t recommend it. I’m building something better but it will take time. JehochmanTalk20:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, as we've been talking about relative activity standards recently, I went over to Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report, and at first glance it appears that we have one 'crat (Addshore), who hasn't met the current 'crat activity standards for 4 months and another (Kingturtle), who won't meet the activity requirements in ~2 months. Raising it here both to give the users in question a heads up, since that doesn't seem to have been done/seems unlikely to be done, but also to raise it for the community since we don't seem to have followed 'crat activity closely. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
And when I went over to Addshore's talk to let him know about this, it looks like Xeno has done the notice there (thanks for that). Still probably worth raising here though. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I'd say we look at this twice a year or so, so we might not be getting to inactive bureaucrats right at the deadline. We did have a bot-generated report but that hasn't been functional in a while. –xenotalk01:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The list of 'crats, and more importantly the list of inactive crats, is so small that managing it by bot seems like overkill. I think that just like with that admin inactivity discussion above, engaging our inactive crats and asking them if they would like to stay active is worthwhile, and better done personally. — xaosfluxTalk14:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I meant a more personal bot, i.e. one that I could ask to message me on my talkpage in X month's time to remind me about something... WJBscribe(talk)18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much a bot to handle notifications, etc., I agree we should do the notifications ourselves- but having an automated process generating the bureaucrat activity report (as best as automation can) would be more convenient. From what I understand you and WJBscribe had to prepare the last report manually, which I"m sure took some time. –xenotalk18:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, an automated report was the starting point, but it then needed quite a bit of manual updating. That's going to be fairly unavoidable where the activity criteria include participating as a bureaucrat in cratchats and this noticeboard, and indeed posting (anywhere) that one remains available to perform bureaucrat actions. We have Addshore now, then Pakaran and Kingturtle (for different reasons) in February 2019 if they do not resume the relevant activity requirement, then it looks like it'll be over a year before this needs looking at again. WJBscribe(talk)18:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The report Madman used to run for us picked up BN edits, bureaucrat discussion edits, etc. (Special:PermanentLink/691208262), so it was a great starting point before having to dig for ancillary bureaucrat actions. Unfortunately I think he did not retain the code, thinking it was a one-off request or somesuch. It would need to be re-written from scratch. (FYI, Addshore has self-requested removal at SRP) –xenotalk18:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
As to asking bureaucrats to stay active, I suspect we will be met with the response that - now renaming is no longer a crat action and there's less than 1 successful RfA per month - there isn't actually much for bureaucrats to do. Someone should count the number of bureaucrat logged actions (+/- bot; +/- sysop) in 2018, I suspect it'll be around 25-30. Obviously there's more to the job than just the logged actions, but we can't avoid the issue that there's simply a lot less for bureaucrats to do than there used to be... WJBscribe(talk)18:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
As noted in Xaosflux' stats, it's not so much RfAs needing tending to as inactive sysops. ~ Amory(u • t • c)21:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Moreover, xaos is also pretty much single-handedly carrying out the monthly -sysops, and the +iadmin was largely a one-off surge when the right came into being. –xenotalk21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, whoa...I only have one logged bureaucratic action this year! Rest assured that I am otherwise engaged as I do read everything that occurs on this page, sometimes comment, am ready to participate in any bureaucrat chats that arise and I can close RfAs/de-or-resysop users but the last few times I've attempted to do so, another bureaucrat got there a minute before I did. :o Acalamari23:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
11 out of 21 (2 have since been removed) and further Crat activity states "Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks".Hence if crats merely comment in WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA or even merely state that remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks they are considered active even if they is no logged action or have not part in crat chat .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you can add Deskana, Useight, and Uninvited Company at least to the "this years list" of engaged 'crats. I think Avi also has done a few renames and has said he's will to 'crat if needed. Maybe a few more can be added. I think the point is that we still have a relatively large percentage who don't exactly do anything even when something comes up. I'm not necessarily suggesting a stricter 'crat activity standard, but recognizing where we are TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It is mostly that we don't have backlogs - because even when we have a backlog of 1 minute we get piles of editors screaming at us </semi-sarc> — xaosfluxTalk23:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be snarky (though yours is warranted ) and I actually very much value having 'crats around to comment without logged actions. I think my comment was more of even considering the ability of just commenting on a board when needed, we have a relatively high percentage who don't do that , which I think is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Like what others said, there's almost no RFAs, usernames got usurped, Outside of the occasional button press there's very little. Wizardman23:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I was just going to post something similar. There aren't backlogs to work down. Typically RFAs are closed within a minute or two of running to completion -- as a practical matter, you have to plan ahead and set an alarm to do one. Requests here are more a matter of checking the page often. The inactivity desysops could perhaps be rotated among whoever wants to do them, and would be a good way to distribute the workload, if that is a useful goal. The original rationale for the "broadly construed" criteria was, I believe, based on the premise that the project is not well served by having the 'crats compete for the rights changes. Sometimes it is better to discuss first. Sometimes the very best thing the bureaucrats can do with a request is: Nothing at all. UninvitedCompany23:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard of a project where crat activity is tied to a number of crat actions, however, there are many projects where it is tied to the number of administrator actions. I am a crat on Wikidata, and sometimes I do not make crat actions (RFA, interface admin, or bot flag) in months, but if I fail to make 5 administrator actions in 6 months, I lose both flags and will have to go through a new RfA if I need them back.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
By policy, we don't require adminship as a requisite for adminship (though in practice we do). Personally, I think it should be so if so loss of admin would also de-crat. — xaosfluxTalk23:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Have we ever had a situation where someone met the criteria for being an inactive admin without meeting the criteria for being an inactive 'crat? UninvitedCompany23:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
It is not currently possible as both groups have a removal in 1 year if no edits or logs of any kind. Should any of the admin inactivity proposals requiring logged actions pass then it would be. — xaosfluxTalk00:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.
These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.
Woo hoo! Password12345 is not on the list! You can't have password1, password12, password123, or password1234. But password12345 is permitted! --B (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a question, and depending on the answer possibly several more questions.
When an admin receives a notice that they are going to be suspended for inactivity, the notice says they will be suspended if they do not return to activity within one month. I have always taken this to mean making an edit or other logged action on-wiki. Is there any cicrcumstance in which some other form of activity would be considered sufficient, as in an email to a 'crat or other off-wiki contact? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
An exception would be made if they're editing with an alternate account (e.g. WP:USEIGHT) but I don't believe that applies to the case you're referring to. I would think that if they emailed it would need to be noted on-wiki someplace by whomever they emailed, otherwise the inactivity procedures should automatically kick in. We no longer have a 'crat mailing list. 28bytes (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Right. And since you do know who I'm talking about, I can't tell why they are still an admin. They got the notice last year and did nothing that I can see for the next 6 months. I guess we might as well make it clear that the subject of discussion here is Revolving Bugbear(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). Just an error maybe? (complicating matters, they have in the meantime made 3 edits and deleted some stuff in their userspace) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Wait, no I missed something, they also deleted something in their userspace just before they would've been desysopped. Blatant gaming but not a 'crat issue, never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Yea, they clearly have a logged action this year - I would not revoke them. I think its a bad standard personally, but that's just opinion. — xaosfluxTalk22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Some notes: As the person who normally pulls these, I'd pretty much still pull if there were no edits or logged actions, I think the "alt account" thing is just wrong but I'm in the minority there. Some people argue that even an oversighted action or log should suffice, though I'd make someone from OS come defend them. I don't think I'd want to count "edit blocked" "actions" either (like a denied filter hit). This protected for life thing is what makes adminship more of a BIGDEAL than it should be. — xaosfluxTalk22:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That last point is a good thing to consider re: what to count for any proposed increase in activity standards, in particular how that proposal would be written. An attempted action that was blocked by a filter is clearly a sign the account shows at a mere modicum of activity, but is clearly neither the letter nor spirit of the policy put into place. The RfC was written specifically enough to not just be "inactivity,", but it's something to consider for a any future discussions. ~ Amory(u • t • c)22:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Xaosflux makes a good point here; it would probably be useful to have a widely advertised discussion about whether the "one edit" requirement is intended by the community to simply solicit a "yep, still alive" message or a genuine indication that the inactive admin intends to return to active editing and adminning in a reasonably short period of time. It's only gaming if the community expects the latter. 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the third time they've almost been desyopped for inactivity, I don't think this is what the community expected when crafting the policy, which s a little too AGF-y in my opinion, but it was probably necessary to include all these loopholes just to have sucha policy in the first place. The latest discussion at WP:VPP seems to have fizzled out. I may consider drafting something but I've tried to keep clear of giant policy RFCs lately. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am increasingly of the opinion that the notifications are a major flaw in this policy. It's been around for seven yers now, if you're aren't aware of the requirements by now then you probably shouldn't be an admin anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
For a long time I held open in my mind the idea that I might return to Wikipedia. It was very much a thing I wanted to hold on to, because even though my life changed and I lost interest in admin'ing on a regular basis, it was a thing I had previously taken great joy in. But, ironically, every time this conversation comes up (and I do monitor it when I notice it), and every time I get one of these notices, it makes me want to come back less. Because there is an extent to which this bureaucracy is self-perpetuating and all of these edits spent discussing me could be better spent improving the encyclopedia, sure, but beyond that it isn't about me but about general approaches to policy. The last round of userspace cleanup was for actually personal reasons, and not to hit the token edit, and the notice kind of reminded me to do it. But for as long as I've been on Wikipedia (which is a very, very long time in Wikipedia years), there has been a tension about whether Wikipedia wants to be a place guided by rules, or a place guided by principles.
28bytes has a very important point about the point of the one edit rule. I doubt that issue will ever be resolved, but it's a thing worth thinking about. If Wikipedia wants to have systems for taking the tools away from people who aren't using them, I don't have a philosophical objection to that, but it raises an extremely important practical question about whether the bureaucracy creates more work than the marginal value of removing the tools from someone who might make mistakes when they come back after a long hiatus. At least in my time active on Wikipedia, that subject was never really a decided issue. But it seems to me that it's kind of a critical question in addressing why the one-edit rule exists, and what the purpose of desysopping someone for inactivity is. And, for that matter, what the purpose of a conversation like this is.
I'm more than a bit saddened at the use of the phrase "a little too AGF-y". I'm hoping (dare I say assuming?) that you didn't quite mean that the way it read.
In any case, I don't really have a vested interest in my adminship at this point, so if it makes all your lives easier, yes, sure, go ahead and remove it. Many thanks to Uninvited Company for his kind words on and off the encyclopedia, and I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time. But it seems that there is a much bigger conversation to be had here which, to be frank, is part of the reason I stopped editing so long ago.
Done I have removed your bit pursuant to your request. I would like to once again thank you for your service to the project during its particularly critical formative and growth years, for the consistent high quality of your article contributions, and your level-headed involvement in WP:RFA. If you change your mind at some future point and rejoin the project, it would be my privilege to sponser a future RFA when the time is right and if you wish it. Meanwhile, be well, and thanks again. UninvitedCompany01:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to respond to your question above.... it's kind of a "have you stopped beating your wife" question as it assumes a purpose that is not in evidence. Nobody is "trying to surprise people." There are two reasons behind the inactivity policy.
One is simple security. Inactive or barely active users have on more than one occasion been the target of breaches, so the purely procedural removal of the tools after a solid year of no activity is a simple but effective precaution against this, and the two-year window where all they have to do is ask and the tools are returned helps unsure we aren't removing people who just took a year off but remain committed to the project.
The reason for the lengthy inactivity and five-year clauses is to insure we don't have clueless admins who are completely out of touch with the expected current standards barging around and using advanced permissions in an unaccaptable manner, and it is not purely hypothetical. The five year clause seems to effect an average of one or two admins each month, and generally these are folks who stopped doing admin work a long time ago and do not need the tools even if they do return later.
It is an observable trend that in some cases the notification triggers the admin in question to make one or two edits, insuring the user keeps the tools, but they otherwise do not engage. This defeats the purpose of both the above outlined reasons. And again, nobody should be terribly surprised anyway at this point as it is now a long-standing policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:Beeblebrox, sorry I didn't reply earlier. Inactive admins were all once valuable, active, trusted contributors who worked hard on behalf of the project. I believe it is important that we part ways with them on the best possible terms. This is both for humanistic reasons -- I personally appreciate what they have done and would want them to look back on their experience here with warmth and joy -- and for project ones. They may return. They may speak to the press, or friends, or powerful people in industry or government, or schools deciding on whether to overturn their all-too-pervasive anti-Wikipedia policies. We should therefore treat them with the utmost respect. That requires clear communication of our policy and our intent before taking action. Regardless of what our purpose may be in revoking access without prior notification, it will have the effect of surprise. I don't think we want to do that. As for the people who are making token edits, I agree there is a problem, and as noted in the other sections of this page I am working to address it on a case-by-case basis and would be happy for others to help. UninvitedCompany17:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
One question I have for you, UninvitedCompany, about your comments to Revolving Bugbear. You said If you change your mind at some future point and rejoin the project, it would be my privilege to sponser a future RFA when the time is right and if you wish it but as I understand it, Revolving Bugbear voluntarily relinquished his tools here and wasn't under a cloud. He could request them back over the next two years and they should be returned to him without a future RfA. LizRead!Talk!00:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Thanks for the note. Revolving Bugbear would technically qualify for the return of the tools at this point. Nonetheless, he has made no administrative actions since 2009 other than the deletion of two pages in his own userspace. Whether, after discussion amongst bureaucrats and the community, the tools would in fact be returned upon request is difficult to anticipate. I would also be willing to sponsor him at RFA after the passage of additional years, under the conditions noted. UninvitedCompany04:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings reading over this discussion. I have had months-long periods of no activity. My activity had been declining for several years, until I had just 15 edits in all of last year. I've gone months without making an edit. I'm sure I've had longer gaps in using the admin buttons. Yet, here I am, fairly active again. If I lost the buttons, I probably wouldn't bother asking to get them back. I'm here (when I'm here) primarily to edit, admining is a sideline. If I'm no longer an admin, I'm sure others will cover what I do, as they have before, but that does raise the average workload, however slightly. Anyway, keep in mind that admins that have become inactive may just return someday. - Donald Albury21:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Proposed procedural change for desysops for inactivity
In light of some of the discussions upthread, I'd like to propose a change to how we implement the inactivity desysops. The purpose of the change would be to be sure that all bureaucrats have the opportunity to perform logged rights changes if they wish to do so:
Community approved policy and procedure remains unchanged.
For the first 24 hours after the list of admins to be desysopped for inactivity is published, bureaucrats who have made no rights changes in the preceding 90 days may each process one desysop for inactivity, if they wish to do so.
Subsequently, any bureaucrat may process any of the remaining desysops for inactivity.
This would have the effect of spreading out the workload and being sure that each 'crat who wishes to be involved in user rights changes has the opportunity to do so, in a predictable, scheduled fashion.
Over time, it may lay the groundwork for simplifying the 'crat inacvitity policy, since it should result in a situation where all active 'crats are performing rights changes every year.
Ha! I actually have been trying to avoid bot flaggings and sysopings lately just to "share the wealth" though really these things are just like any other chore - we don't say "hold of on WP:PERM's" until the ~300 sysops that have 0 logged actions in a year have a chance. — xaosfluxTalk00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a "schedule" of sorts, where 2-3 of us are "on duty" for a given week, and handle any needs that come up during that week. That might share the wealth, as you say. Just a thought that has been rattling around for a few days. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The truth is, when I drafted the bureaucrat activity policy I basically made it impossible for a bureaucrat to be removed for inactivity unless they completely ignore the bureaucratic realm entirely. Even Acalamari's "We are here! We are here! We are here!" comment has refreshed their bureaucrat standing for three years. –xenotalk01:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad of an idea at all. Might be a nice way of giving otherwise inactive 'crats a chance to dip their toe in on a monthly basis. But then again I'm not the one doing all the inactivity desysopings, so I'll defer to Mr. Flux, who is. 28bytes (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The one frequent activity where I'd really like to see more 'crat action is resysop requests - even if it just a "looks fine" comment, having some comments show that we are properly reviewing the requests to ensure the requirements are in place. Do we need 20 comments on each - certainly not, but a 2 or 3 help to show you are active and show the community that we are here. — xaosfluxTalk02:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm tryng to make sur eI understand the point here, which to me seems to be to make sure 'crats have something to do, not to help resolve backlogs or anything like that? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The point seems to be to give crats the chance to do specific crat-tasks in order to avoid being classified as "inactive" by some policy that requires logged activity to maintain crat status. I agree with xaosflux and Xeno though that cratting does not necessarily mean doing some kind of logged action since discussing things is equally important. After all, if there is a crat chat for an RFA, a dozen crats might be involved but only one can flip the bit if that's the consensus. Regards SoWhy08:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't seem very "Wiki" to me. The important thing is that the work gets done, not who does it. If we have too many crats, then we should have less. We shouldn't stop the ones who are doing work, to allow other people to do the work - that seems like madness... WormTT(talk) 10:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If that were true, every editor should be a crat. I'm not saying we do have too many, I think that we have about the right amount, but that if people believe we have too many due to the inactivity of some, they should look to remove some. WormTT(talk) 10:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Just like any editor who can be trusted with the tools should be an admin, any admin who can be trusted with the additional tools should be a crat. For example, on es-wiki, all admins are crats and that project still have not gone up in flames. As Ammarpad correctly points out, Wikipedia is a volunteer service, so our goal should be to have as many people as possible able to do what needs to be done. Regards SoWhy11:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
An obvious problem with having all admins being crats is the same reason why all admins are not interface admins - it creates a risk if an account is compromised. In this case a compromised admin/crat account could desysop every other admin on the wiki, making it harder to stop them in their tracks speedily. — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
That could easily be solved software-wise, for example by limiting the number of desysops possible within a certain time frame. Also, recent events have shown that stewards are capable to react to such developments rather quickly. Regards SoWhy08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think trying to create work for bureaucrats out of no work is the solution here. Also fixed spreading of work (rostering) is quite contrary to the ethos and principles of Wikipedia. The top few lines at WP:VOLUNTEER explain this succinctly –Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Per Xaosflux, extra bureaucratic procedures to ensure some of the team get a hand in the fiddly bits doesn't make sense to me, as either efficient or effective, and certainly seems contrived. Likewise per Xf, we have constructed our crat activity rules to allow for input and participation in discussions like this (or even intention to do so), and as there isn't much work to go around, giving their advice and counsel is the more valuable thing any might do. ~ Amory(u • t • c)11:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
As a side note, do we really have to immediately launch into bolded !voting? Can we not just discuss things a bit without lining up into teams? Who knows, even if the originally proposed suggestion isn't the way to go, maybe some more interesting and useful ideas will shake out. 28bytes (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The point made by Xaosflux above is an excellent one; more scrutiny of resysop requests would also help maintain the integrity of that process. If we're looking at satisfying a bureaucratic requirement here, surely the easiest "fix" is to define such a comment as equivalent to a logged bureaucrat action.to encourage participation in resysop requests. Spreading the paperwork around does seem contrary to our philosophy, per WTT. It also strikes me somewhat as a solution in search of a problem, in that the issues typically associated with inactive privileged accounts (security, being out of touch with the community) would not be fixed by this process, unless the increased opportunity to take bureaucrat actions is accompanied by a tightening of the activity standards. To be quite honest, I'm far more concerned about the few hundred active or marginally active admins: I found one today whose last admin action seems to have been in 2012, whose last 50 edits go back to 2014, who has logged less than a 100 admin actions since they passed RFA in 2005 with 16 supports. If we're concerned about inactivity, that's the sort of user we should be concerned about, not so much crats who have too few logged actions. Vanamonde (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Modified per reply to Amory. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe I didn't lay out the rationale very well, or maybe it's just a bad idea. Here are some thoughts and replies:
An ongoing pattern with the promotions and other bureaucrat-specific work is that we tend to have lengthy periods where the vast majority of promotions (etc) are performed by one 'crat. At one point in history, a certain 'crat performed substantially all RFA promotions (there were then typically over a dozen per month) within seconds of closure. I'm not certain when that particular individual slept. Things have improved since then but the number of promotions have decreased. The goal of the proposal is to provide an opportunity for more 'crats to be invovled in actual use of the tools without having to check WP:BN multiple times per day or set an alarm clock for the moment an RFA concludes.
The activity policy we have now is unnecessarily complex to implement and IMO is unlikely to survive ongoing community scrutiny. I think it was the right approach at the time it was adopted, and it was useful in dealing with 'crats who were granted the tools without asking for them and who never had any serious interest in the work. A barrier to a simpler policy based solely on logged actions is that it is quite possible to check WP:BN, WP:RFA, etc. every day for a month and still not have an opportunity to do any work.
I thought of various sorts of "rostering" ideas and also dismissed them as being too unwikilike. Hence the 24 hour window, enough that anyone who wants to be involved in the work here can make a rights change. There's nothing time critical about the monthly desysoppings; if there were, we'd run the reports daily. I don't think there's any benefit to the project or the community in having all the monthly desysoppings performed immediately by one person rather than as a group effort during a 1 day hold (with, in likely practice, one person doing the leftovers at the end).
If anyone has other ideas on how to spread the workload out without introducing delays or complexity in areas that matter, bring them on.
That does makes a bit more sense now, thanks. But participating here, for example, is a really important Crat task and any of us can do that without artificially dividing up "work". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!23:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
So, frankly, this is not working out the way I would have liked it to work out. No one has replied, out of (as of now) 12 people contacted. I'm coming around to the point of view that maybe some sort of inactivity policy to deal with this may be required at some point. I'm still going to keep contacting people, if nothing else, to show we care. UninvitedCompany18:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That's disappointing but not terribly surprising. There's several cases on that list of users who obviously lost all interest in admin work a very long time ago. The policy we have now, with the exception of the five-year clause, is essentially the same as it was seven years ago when it was first enacted, it seems like it's high time for some adjustments now that we see how it works, and when it doesn't really work. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I put together a proposal based on "editing days" but I'm not sure I like it so I haven't published it. It's an attempt to define activity in a way that doesn't allow/encourage people to show up once a year, revert a dozen pages in the space of ten minutes, delete a speedy, and call it good. Then require m editing days in the previous n months and x editing days in the previous y months or something. I'm going to have to make a script to figure out the right thresholds to propose. That's the essence, some admin actions also, and notification, yada yada. I'm torn on whether outreach (like what I'm doing now) should also be part of the policy. It's a lot of work, and so far, doesn't seem likely to make a difference. UninvitedCompany19:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, you're sending messages to people that only turn up every couple of months at best. Getting a reply in two days is what would've been surprising. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about other editors but when I enabled email for my Wikipedia account, I set up a special GMail account just for Wikipedia conversation and business (because I was an ARBCOM clerk). When I stopped editing for a year, I rarely ever checked that email account. I wouldn't be surprised if inactive admins don't regularly check their email accounts if they set up a separate one for Wikipedia. LizRead!Talk!20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't expect a lot of support for a system where we have to do algebra to determine if an admin is meeting the activity requirements. Simpler is almost certainly better. I am drafting something as well, and there is still an open discussion at WP:VPP that could result in some changes, if only an uninvolved user would close it... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I've thought about it while writing letters to inactive admins that go largely unanswered. Here's what I've come up with.
The present "1 edit in 12 months" policy is replaced with a requirement to meet either:
20 edits in the preceding 12 months, not including edits to your own User: or User:talk: space, or
1 edit in the preceding 12 months, and 1000 edits in the preceding five years, again not including your own user/talk space.
For simplicity, logged actions are no longer considered in determining whether a user is active.
No courtesy re-adminship at WP:BN unless either the 20 in a year or 1000 in 5 years is met first. Bureaucrats would be responsible for confirming compliance.
Lengthy inactivity provisions remain unchanged.
Notification procedure to remain unchanged (text of notices will be updated to reflect new policy)
To take effect six months after approval
On a one-time basis, accounts potentially affected to be notified on talk pages and via email of the new policy
Rationale is that it deals with the people who have drifted away with no real intent to return but who make a few edits a year without really re-engaging. 5 year provision is a real-world acknowledgement that people sometimes drift away for a while then come back. Deliberate lack of focus on logged admin actions since this is controversial and could unnecessarily derail progress.
..nod.. If there is no further feedback from other bureaucrats, I think I'll just leave it here for now to be archived, and make a similar proposal at a more suitable time at one of the venues you suggest. I believe it is best to wait until the existing discussion at VP(P) runs its course and is formally closed before proposing an alternative. UninvitedCompany19:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I suppose my comment would be that 20 edits is only marginally less "game-able" than 1 edit. The fact is, without actual re-confirmations (which I'm not advocating for, to be clear), there is always the chance that administrators can drift out of touch with community norms while keeping up appearances. –xenotalk19:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there - I acknowledge I’m no longer active on Wikipedia and fine to remove my administrator rights (I received an email on this today). Best wishes to all administrative and bureaucrats still keeping the project moving. Harro5 —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I was going through some old RfA's when I noticed something strange. In this RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cordyph which had happened in March 2003, three editors were made admins but I'm not able to find the actual account of former admin Cordyph which had those administrator rights. There are 2 (and possibly 3) accounts which belong to Cordyph and they are User:Cordyph~enwiki, User:Baldhur and the third possible User:Cordyph (which I'm not yet sure whether it actually belongs to the original Cordyph or not). I've checked the user rights log of all these accounts here and on Meta Wiki as well but I'm not seeing anything. Maybe I'm missing something, and therefore would like someone to take a look into this. -TheGeneralUser(talk)23:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the rights were granted before logs were implemented, so they won't show up in the system (see for example LittleDan's log, which only has the rights being removed). Presumably, Cordpyh's rights were also removed before logging started. ansh66623:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If it was before 29 May 2004, it would have been on the old software, and consequently wouldn't show up in the logs. Even the edit history of pages is hazy from before that time, let alone things like rights and block logs which weren't considered important back then. ‑ Iridescent23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
User:TheGeneralUser: It's a complicated case, but as I recall with the old renaming policy, you had to create the new account first, which logically means the rights of Cordyph never switched to Baldhur. The history is slightly blurry since they resigned during the rename process, not making it entirely clear what account had adminship at the time, but I believe Baldhur never had adminship. Here is a timeline of events as far as I can piece together:
September 15, 2002: User:Cordyph's account was created.
March 10, 2003: Cordyph was promoted to administrator
October 2003: Cordyph entered a dispute with another editor, and temporarily left Wikipedia.
October 29, 2003: The userpage of User:Baldhur was created, as with the old renaming policy, you had to create the account first and then contributions were then transferred to the new account after confirming you owned both.
November 6, 2003: Cordyph begins signing as Baldhur and the userpages of Cordyph moved to Baldhur, which he did manually.
November 15, 2003: Tim Starling desysops Cordyph per his request and indicates the rename will take place at a later point, which was done and the histories of the two accounts merged.
March 9, 2009: Baldhur creates his single user login [3]
March 16, 2015: Baldhur creates a single user login for his old username Cordyph attaching his old Meta account,[4] which created the new User:Cordyph en.wiki account and booted his old en.wiki username to User:Cordyph~enwiki.
Hi, I've been desysopped due to inactivity that had lasted for more than a year. I'm back now and would like to have the admin tools back. Thanks :D --BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IAdmin request (Enterprisey)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone! I'd like to request intadmin for myself. I will primarily maintain the AfC helper gadget, as well as script-installer (RfC) and reply-link when and if (respectively) they become gadgets. I'd also like to contribute to a couple of user scripts (e.g. ePH or this). Qualifications-wise, I've been working on scripts here since at least mid-2013, and I've written quite a few myself. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose because I'm a mean SOB, and because his reply-link script doesn't work on my talk page, so he's clearly exclusionist, and because my crackers I'm eating now are too dry, and I'm hungry, and thirsty, and pizza, and what was I talking about again?end humor—CYBERPOWER(Chat)23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand - why are so many non-bureaucrats chiming in here as if it was up to them? This is the bureaucrats board and this is a decision made by the 'crats - isn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In this specific case, I'll admit the pile-on support commentary is pretty useless because Enterprisey is such an eminently qualified candidate. However, as this is a pretty sensitive permission in general, I think it's a good idea to allow endorsements and objections from non-bureaucrats in the community during that 48-hour "hold" period between the request and the earliest the permission can be assigned. The quote that Hhkohh referred to comes from the page Wikipedia:Interface administrators. Mz7 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per Galobtter. He sums it up well: wiki[pm]edians liking !voting, especially when it's a lot like voting. I agree that most don't need an excuse. On a more serious note, it's possible that such standardization of bold support/oppose/delete/keep/etc. !votes, while wholly unnecessary here, makes providing dissent more palatable. ~ Amory(u • t • c)11:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN It's the bureaucrats' final decision but I don't think bureaucrats have also been tasked with vetting and debating the candidate. For my part I appreciate {{nbo}}s helping us with the decision. –xenotalk20:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a hard decision, if I may be so bold, but regardless I do want to point you to to WT:INTADMIN, where Enterprisey was an active participant in initial discussions around interface-adminship. Specifically, archives 2 and 3, where you will not only find dozens of instances of individuals urging Enterprisey to run for RfA ( Done) but also noting that Enterprisey was one of the few editors who made the "Should RfA be required?" question actually worth discussing. ~ Amory(u • t • c)11:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 think we can all agree that admins are not likely going to abuse this permission, otherwise it would have already happened a lot more in the last decade. The real question should be is the requesting account secure enough to ensure that they won't be compromised while possessing the bit and will the requesting account be responsible with JS files? These are general questions not being specifically asked to Galobtter.—CYBERPOWER(Around)03:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Support shows need, trustworthy, account is secure, if we can have an admin become an int-admin within a week of being promoted, I guess this should happen too. SemiHypercube14:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that Enterprisey and Galobtter are interface admins, there is really no need for me to hang on to my permissions in this area. I've hardly used them, and removing them reduces the potential attack vector. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've come to the end of my decade of terror on this project. Please remove my advanced permissions, and do not restore unless re-approved by the community. Thanks for the memories! Nakon05:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resignation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
Arbitration motion regarding Alex Shih
The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Alex Shih(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.
If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the Clerks' noticeboard.
If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
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.
@DannyS712: the creator has been around for a couple of years and has 2500+edits, while it certainly seems TOOSOON we have no reason to just delete this, and its not hurting anything. Suggest you have a discussion with the page creator, who can request speedy deletion if he likes. — xaosfluxTalk13:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: standard 48 hour hold for review. — xaosflux Talk 21:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. (Minus the founder flag.) 28bytes (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
--Deryck C. 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Doing... — xaosflux Talk 21:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Not done due to lack of admin actions for five years prior to desysopping in 2014. Any further discussion can be taken elsewhere. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm. Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and explaining that the reason you have next to no edits in 4 years is because you've been sockpuppeting is definitely unlikely to endear you to the community. ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Praxidicae (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
