Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

I was looking at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive and noticed that it's been over a year (in one case, 3 years) without any edits by Thunderboltz, Useight, Tijuana Brass and Friday and yet they still have admin status and, in Useight's case, bureaucrat status even though it's been 2 years, 8 months since they were active. Did the bot just miss them? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All but Useight have deleted pages within the last 12 months so that is why they have not been desysopped yet. Not sure why for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As for Useight his alternate account User:Useight's Public Sock made an edit in December 2014 so I expect that is the reason for Useight. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess those actions don't show up as "edits" in their contribution history? I guess their names should be removed from that list. Although, I've seen admins marked as "active" who have 7 edits over the past 3 years...that hardly seems active. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, deletions do not show up as edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion here? The community has decided that inactive admins may have the tools removed without prejudice in cases of inactivity. The cases mentioned above are certainly within the spirit of such inactivity, if not the letter. Maybe these cases could be referred to WP:ANI for discussion by the community. Any such approval by the community could then be acted on by a beaurocrat. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

But surely an admin who does one or two deletes is a more active admin (doing admin tasks) than one who does one or two normal edits. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's less about who is more active than who, and more the other reasons listed for desysopping after periods of inactivity, like not being up to date with current policies. I've forgotten who it was now, but I saw an admin recently who seemed to come back every two years to make an admin action or two before going inactive again. That's definitely what I'd define as inactive, and I think there should be some scope within the procedural desysopping for those administrators who do the bare minimum in order to simply retain the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think the bare minimum is insufficient then perhaps a proposal to add the words "or less than a 100 edits on all Wikimedia projects in the last three years" might get consensus. The advantage of an additional three year test extended to all Wikimedia Projects is that someone active on other projects is less likely to be a lost and now suborned account, and whilst they may not have kept track of changes here, they will still be familiar with mediawiki and changes like V/E. ϢereSpielChequers 05:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Any scope creep in the inactivity policy definitely needs to be done via RFC, or its going to cause no end of drama. Monty₈₄₅ 13:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Monty845 is correct; if there is to be any change in the current desysopping framework, that should be done via well-advertized formal RFC.

Useight's Public Sock hasn't edited for some months and Useight did not certify ownership of his account on request of another bureaucrat here so without a fresh edit confirming ownership and fulfilling inactivity requirements we should probably withdraw the rights (with thanks to Useight for his service). (Of course, if ownership is confirmed, the edit from the alternate account counts as bureaucratic activity and meets inactivity requirements.) –xeno^talk 15:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from Xeno, at my main account, to which I replied, but I just noticed that I got an auto-reply. I kind of feel like a character in the Dr. Suess book Horton Hears A Who - "We are here, we are here, we are here!"

I am not at my home computer, like I am often not, and I apologize to WJBScribe for completely forgetting about his request from a long time ago. It occurs to me that having a laptop would have solved this problem, but I intentionally don't have one, in order to ensure I pay attention in class.

I will log into my main account later.

Also, it looks like Thunderboltz has just about gone a year without an edit or logged action, too. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol, forgive the auto-reply, the inmates run the asylum apparently. A fresh edit would be nice but that is enough to verify ownership imo. –xeno^talk 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support an RfC with this provision. It seems ridiculous that admin candidates are put through such a grueling RfA process when there are admins who just return once a year to make one or two edits in order to retain the tools. When you see the thoughtfulness of some admins, who come here to BN to officially resign or temporarily be desysopped, it makes the other situation look ludicrous. No one needs the tools if they are going to make less than 5 edits in a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Useight's Public Sock, I mention Thunderboltz in my original message that started this thread. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the time to put something coherent together right now, but if someone else picked a suitable number of edits/actions per year that would still imply that an admin is 'inactive' (less than 10 or 20 perhaps?) and start an RfC I would likely support it. Sam Walton (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would give a few options and let people choose from them in the RFC, rather than having a RFC that is all or nothing. --Rschen7754 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that to be active, an admin had to have 20-25 edits/actions per year but I like WereSpielChequers's suggestion of 100 edits over three years across all Wikimedia projects. I'm just tired of running into active admins with less than 5 edits over a few years. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a post on the Idea Lab regarding a suitable length and whether to include other projects would be a good idea prior to an RfC? Sam Walton (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Imagine my excitement at being summoned here by somebody I don't know wanting to de-sysop me for no reason other than I have a life away from Wikipedia. I've never really understood the fixation some people have on this. Even though this has been marked as resolved - for now - since my name was brought up, I'll answer: It's true, after three kids, marriage, a demanding job and time consuming volunteer activities, I don't have the contribution time I had when I was a single 20-something. But I still edit on a monthly basis, albeit on an anonymous basis. Often it's because I'm somewhere where I don't trust my login credentials are secure (i.e. work). Other times it's because I don't want to throw the "weight" of an admin into a discussion. And occasionally it's because I'm lazy. But I'm still here.

Do I log in and make the minimum required edits to keep my status? Yep. Because I may well be back one day. Has anyone ever offered up a legit challenge that I'd be unfit to continue to perform admin duties, as opposed to when I was given the status almost ten years ago? Nope. So why is this brought up? I've watched the question raise its head a few times over the past years, and it's always people going after a non-issue. If a specific individual is causing some sort of problem after a hiatus, take away their tools. Otherwise, be grateful that you have somebody who's been found, by a group of their editing peers, to be competent enough to help keep the encyclopedia running and may be back some day.

Finally... just an FYI... you're more than welcome to debate raising the bar to some other arbitrary number. But if that happens, I'll just log in for that many edits, and then go back to editing anonymously, save for the rare occasion when I need the mop. Come on, guys. You're all long time editors, familiar with what really needs getting done around here. Spend your time on that, instead of obsessing over people who have to take a break for their personal lives and aren't causing any actual problem. Tijuana Brass (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to add - short of requiring periodic reconfirmation RfAs (which will never happen), they're just gonna meet whatever criteria you require. Waste of time for everyone. ansh666 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem...admins who do the minimum number of edits to hold on to the tools with no active use of them. They are, in effect, inactive admins though they have an active admin status. They should either use the tools or lose them, otherwise it's just hat collecting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't hat collecting, though you might consider it hat keeping. A hat collector is someone who takes on a role and then scarcely ever uses it, some of our inactive and former admins did a huge amount of admin work when they were active. Remember that though we can't agree whether we already have a shortage of admins, we do know that the number of active admins has long been declining, and though we have no shortage of mops at some point we will have a shortage of admins. In those circumstances why would we want to make it more difficult for formerly active admins to keep the mop? If someone spends a few years being busy in other parts of their life we should be making it as easy as possible for them to return here, of course we need to get returnees updated and back up to speed and it's good to see sufficient edits that we can be confident it is the same person. But with RFA broken our former admins are an important potential source of admin activity, and we should not be raising excessive barriers against their return. ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2 suggests that regaining the tools due to inactivity via an RfA may be trending positive -- at least for the obviously qualified. Rgrds. --64.85.216.26 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to Opabinia regalis, but that is one isolated and rare exception. Its an outlier. The RFA process has long since been a broken process, it doesn't generate enough new admins and it drives off editors. This has been shown time and time and time again. One isolated case, though well deserved, doesn't change that. Giraffasaurus (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have been away from Wikipedia for a while and my admin rights were removed due to inactivity. I would like to request that they are re-enabled. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine after the customary hold period. –xeno^talk 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

   Done, welcome back. –xeno^talk 11:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks TigerShark (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

...at this discussion on AN/I? BMK (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have commented, but (contrary to what BD2412 has said in that thread) this is not an area in which bureaucrats have any additional tools that would assist. WJBscribe (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have no special abilities to remove block entries, unfortunately; though I agree the block, the block reason, both poorly considered by BD2412. An admin shouldn't be blocking an established editor over an edit dispute especially without warning and from the hip like that. Hopefully this is an isolate lapse in judgment. Sorry you've got a block log, now Mlpearc. I've got one too, if it makes you feel any better. –xeno^talk 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, as do I, arising from a bit of wiki history. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm getting over it, I was quite hot at first, thanx Xeno. WJBscribe thank you for your comment. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's understandable. I remember being blocked (on another, non-Wikimedia wiki) by an admin for an invalid reason and seeing red myself. –xeno^talk 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, perhaps it would be advisable for the user to be blocked and unblocked again, with a specific comment as to the validity (or rather the lack thereof) of the original block. Conversations in noticeboards are easy to miss, but a log is not. If this was me I'd rather have one additional block with an explanation than just one without. But I guess that's up to the user that was the target of the block. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The text accompanying the block can be revdel'ed; I've done that myself as a 'crat on Wikiquote. bd2412 T 23:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably Wikiquote does not have the equivalent of this policy: Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. Best to just get the blocks right in future. In the meantime, perhaps you could add a 1 minute procedural block acknowledging your block was made in error and apologising for it? WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm misreading, but it does appear that blocks can be redacted with "required consensus or Arbcom agreement"; perhaps either of these could be sought. (Also, that should be 1 second, not 1 minute.) –xeno^talk 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

True enough - those do seem valid routes to get permission to use rev delete to fix this mess. By 1 minute I meant a trivially short block, 1 second would work too :-). WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 FreeRangeFrog's remedy is fine with me, matter of fact that would be best I think rather than trying to alter the logs, I would however, fell better if a 'crat would do the action, no dis-respect BD2412. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) No, if it must be done, I have to be the one to do it; it's my mea culpa. bd2412 T 23:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I continue to think that a revdel of the earlier log would be appropriate. bd2412 T 23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You could create a new thread at WP:AN seeking the "required consensus", or maybe send a request to Arbcom seeking permission to redact the logs, as mentioned at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. (Though it should be noted that the injured party thinks the already-implemented solution is best.) –xeno^talk 23:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the best solution is to leave a summary using a 1 second block. Although I have said otherwise before, I am concerned about setting a precedent regarding the revdel-ing of block logs, as it makes it harder for non-admins to audit the use of an admin's tools, should there be a need to do so (i.e. an ArbCom case). --Rschen7754 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already been done, but not quite like you described and I don't think we should sully Mlpearc's log any further. –xeno^talk 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Jcw69 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Resolved

Hi, I too have been inactive for a while due to work commitments. My admin rights were removed due to inactivity but now find myself with time to contribute again therefore I would like to request that my admin rights be re-instated. Thank you. --Jcw69 (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Qualifies for resysop after the 24-hour hold period. –xeno^talk 13:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issues either, and so have restored the right. Worm^TT(talk) 12:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 27#Template:Rfap. –xeno^talk 11:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

When admins are about to be desysopped for inactivity, I assume that a message is left on their talk page, but is an e-mail also sent out to them? I'm just wondering if an e-mail might prevent more procedural desysoppings and, not incidentally, remind the admin that they haven't edited in a while and might like to start up again. BMK (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot that sends out the advanced warning notices emails a copy if email is enabled. –xeno^talk 23:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the response. BMK (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but, from what I've seen, there are three messages placed on the admin's talk page over the course of a month alerting them to their loss of the mop. One single edit would stop the process which seems like an absolutely minimal requirement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the announcment on AC/N. Thanks in advance. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this here. Acalamari 18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I recently had my admin rights suspended after being inactive for a year. See DESiegel (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). I have resumed activity, as can be seen from my contributions. I hereby request restoration of my admin rights. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine after the standard hold. –xeno^talk 15:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections in over 24 hours so  Done. Welcome back, DESiegel. :) Acalamari 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, xeno. I shall attempt to be an asset to the project. DES ^(talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In an a workshop ongoing regarding administrator activity, bureaucrat activity was brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Bureaucrats?. (The last discussion on this subject was held when renaming was still part of the bureaucrat toolset.) –xeno^talk 13:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• @pple (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Dlohcierekim (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Wayward (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 09:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done Dlohcierekim & Wayward. Can't do @pple - looks like that will need to be done by a steward, due to the username Worm^TT(talk) 10:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Typing #3685614 into the username field should work to remove the admin rights (it just did when I tested it to get onto the removal screen). That's the user ID for that user per this API query, and that's basically how the stewards would do it anyway. Graham87 10:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Service. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both - didn't even occur to me! Now done Worm^TT(talk) 12:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pursuant to this decision of the Arbitration Committee, please remove admin tools from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Acalamari 18:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

 On hold pending comment from the Arbitration Committee (see Special:Diff/666496542; Special:Diff/666543382). –xeno^talk 00:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC) see special:Diff/666827735

Hi all - I'd like to request a reinstatement of my sysop rights. They were previously stripped (and my account blocked) after I had a technical compromise simultaneous to health issues that prevented me from immediately dealing with the technical isssue and requesting GorillaWarfare block my account, and have since locked down my system. I realize this is a slightly atypical situation, but feel that postinghere requesting reinstatement is likely to still be teh most transparent route. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. Not sure I've got this right, but it looks like you were desysopped just a week ago by an ArbCom representative. As such, I don't think we should resysop without ArbCom say-so. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Although performed at the behest of an arb member (and I would expect arb to be consulted before reinstating the rights,) they were removed at my own request (since I couldn't immediately secure my own accounts, I asked GW to take action.) Although I would expect arbcom to have input here, since they were removed at self-request and were not removed under a shade, it seemed more appropriate/transparent to request restoration and discussion here than through private lists. (GW is aware I posted here, as I imagine is the rest of arbcom by this point.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, as this request was made at the behest of an arb member, we will be waiting for an arb member to re-instate. Worm^TT(talk) 15:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly expect the 'crats to wait on arbcom confirmation it's okay to and have no problem with it :) I just felt like it would be a little more in the wiki-way to place a request about it on a public board, rather than email arbcom-l and the crats lists independently. Realistically, I'm hoping it won't a particularly challenging discussion - I reached out once I knew an account had been compromised to prevent any damage to the wiki, asked for me rights to be stripped, and then remedied the situation as I could (which involved voluntary giving up of privs while not under the shadow of wrongdoing. In full disclosure, one of my blocks was challenged to ANI during this, but it was upheld.). Felt like BN was a better place for a discussion of restoration of rights not taken away under the shadow of wrongdoing than elsewrhere would've been, since it really is a 'crat matter. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Hopefully, they'll give us a quick answer. --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, WTT. ArbCom is aware of this request and we are currently discussing it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(del/undel) 17:40, 4 June 2015 Addshore (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Kevin Gorman from edit filter manager, course campus volunteer, course coordinator, course instructor, course online volunteer and administrator to edit filter manager, course campus volunteer, course coordinator, course instructor and course online volunteer (Temporary desysop per private communication with the Arbitration Committee. GW)

I've alerted GorillaWarfare to this, happy to follow Arbcom's instructions in this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 15:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing, that Worm That Turned. I should have thought of it in the first instance. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can it conclusively be said that the correct user is now in control of the account? –xeno^talk 19:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Slowly threading answers as I can, but yes, we certainly can. I'm more than willing to voice/video/verify with Keilana (a well-regarded admin,) Molly (a current arbcom member,) NF (a current arbcom member, and any number of WMF'ers who have met me in person. Threading in replies one by one to avoid complex edit conflicts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. –xeno^talk 23:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Marked 'on hold' while awaiting response from the committee. –xeno^talk 00:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the discussion below, it was pointed out that the Wikipedia:Administrators#Security policy since 2008 (and not modified following a 2013 RFC) asks bureaucrats to consider while evaluating such requests "their view on the incident and the management and security (including likely future security) of the account."
  
  Without comment on the propriety of this policy section, at this moment I don't feel I have enough information to properly consider your request as suggested; and while things may become clearer with further response from the committee (and the request is on hold at least until then anyway), perhaps you could describe the circumstances surrounding the compromised account and steps you've taken to re-secure your account both now and in the future? You could do this here, via Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or even directly to Special:EmailUser/Xeno if you prefer not to email the list (though other bureaucrats might also request the same disclosure from you). –xeno^talk 00:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I forwarded significantly more details to Xeno. In my mind, this was less of a breach than an average editathon, let alone Wikimania-type event. I trust Xeno's judgment as to who further disclose to. I don't think any realistic evaluation of what happened here has it any more a danger than an average editathon. Disclosure of OPSEC related events is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. I've had least one person in a position where they could actually do so suggest the possibility of an additional week long full block which would be entirely punitive in nature. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Confirming receipt of Kevin's email; still awaiting comment from committee. –xeno^talk 17:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your patience, all. Please go ahead with the resysop. For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since no further information or guidance has been provided by the committee and from my understanding of the events, there has been no negligence or carelessness on the part of Kevin Gorman as regards account security (indeed it was responsible and appropriate to self-request the removal of the tools as a precautionary measure), I will restore his administrator privileges after another 12 hours or so. –xeno^talk 23:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Xeno: Given that far more than 24 hours have passed since the original request and the only bar to restoring the tools has been removed, why can't this be done immediately? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It's been 3 days, anyone that wanted to object should have and would have done it by now.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 10:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • 1) An objection thread was suspended pending AC comment, potentially causing others to reserve their comments - so allowing at least some time for objections to be raised following the awaited comment is appropriate and 2) for reasons explained in my second paragraph here. –xeno^talk 12:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree with the delay as a standard delay once the primary hurdle had been passed; Crats only get one chance to do it right. Don't see any bar to resysop after the delay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for reinstatement of sysop rights (discussion)

Request for reinstatement of sysop rights (break)

@GorillaWarfare: didn't see the old fashioned way to alert used. Just in case. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking! I am indeed aware, and we are discussing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• must be quite a discussion based on how long it's taking. Not to rush things, and though not an arb, I fully support the reinstatement of the bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There are differing views, but yes the discussion is ongoing. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify what there are different views about @Euryalus:? I wasn't desysoped as part of an arb proceeding, but to ensure that a temporarily compromised account could cause no damage. As far as I can see it, the only thing needed to continue here is to ensure I am who I say I am. I believe that I have done that already, but if not would be glad to go buy NF a coffee if he is on campus tomorrow, or voice verify with any current arb/functionary/admin/Wikimedian whom I have previously met.

I don't think this is (nor do I believe it should be) a referendum on my current popularity among currrent arbitrators, admins, or the community as a whole. I think I have established that I am who I say I am - if I haven't, I'd be glad to go buy NativeForeigner a coffee if he is on campus tomorrow, or voice-verify with any of the hundreds of Wikipedians I've previously spoken to in-depth, including Gorilawarfare, Keilana, Andrew Lih, a great number of WMF staff, and a great number of other admins/arbs/CU's/OS'ers/WMF trustees/people who have written books about Wikipedia.

Unless concern remains that I am not who I say I am, I believe the only appropriate action for a crat wandering by to take would be to flip the bit. If some portion of arbcom believes that I have committed a desysoppable action by not throughly vetting the equipment on a network before connecting to it, thy have procedures in place to try desysop me themselves, those procedures are separate than the crat actions here and haveso far not been forthcoming. I could see delaying the 'crat switch a bit if they were eminently forthcoming, but it's been days. Though I'll get it done eventually anyway, I had intendedd to spend a good chunk of the next few days rewriting, rearranging, and restructuring content in a few area (woo, hefty amazon giftcards,) and given the way I work it's a bit of an unnecessary pain to rely on a second admin or just waiting for the bit to be reswitched.

Particularly given that it would have been possible for me to switch passwords on my mobile, and never mention that I had discovered that I had connected to a network that was at the time the target of both software and hardware keyloggers, it seems like disincentivizing good behavior. I'd be happy to voice verify that my account is back under control with any functionary who has heard my voice, which includes quite a few of them. Keep in mind that punishing people who divulge security lapses makes it less likely that future security lapses will be divulged - and this one would've been pretty to hide unless I am in fact delusional (I'd love to read the doc with legal implications about that whole mess of worms that some poor legal WMF intern would get to write about desysopping proccedures in that situation...

Fundamentally, this is a process for the 'crats. If they're content I say I am, they should flip the switch. If they're not, they shouldn't, but should lay out what identity proof they'd like. If Arbcom wants to try to desysop, I can't stop hem from doing so (though I do think it'd vbe rather wasteful,) but it should be through their own well-established processes - not unnecessarily taildragging the processes of the 'crats. (Noteworthily perhaps, since I reached out to her individually as the first Wikipedian friend I saw on FB with advanced privs, I would be skeptical of any claim that Molly's original actions in blocking/locking/striping my account were taken by her under the color of the committee as a whole.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the committee is discussing, but this is the same reason it would be imprudent for a bureaucrat to fulfill this request without waiting. They may have access to information we don't. I do apologize for the delay, hopefully we will hear soon. –xeno^talk 13:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Speaking as an editor not an arb clerk) Given that GW clarified that the desysop (before resysop request) was not done with the Committee's okay but was rather her acting alone based on a request from Kevin it seems we now have a situation where the Committee has desysoped without the paperwork. They are "discussing" a desysop which they (as a Committee) were not involved with. As far as I can see Kevin's last para is spot on. If the Committee believes there is cause to desysop they need to do the paperwork, since they haven't there's nothing stopping a crat flipping the switch. If the crats collectively won't then they need to present their concerns (and the some arbs saying they're discussing it isn't one as there hasn't been a formal statement/decision), as Kevin has asked for in his last para, or ask ArbCom to desysop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know on what you're basing your beliefs about the motivations of the Arbitration Committee. I won't speculate on what Salvio giuliano indicated the committee is discussing; however, in certain scenarios that come to mind, restoring the bit without awaiting further comment or direction would be reckless (and this is without any sort of prejudice towards Kevin Gorman or his rights to the administrative toolset).

The WP:RESYSOP procedure has built-in delays: immediate re-sysop is not guaranteed, there is an automatic waiting period to ensure sufficient bureaucrats can review and comment on the request. Other bureaucrats are likely witholding comment because we are awaiting further information, and we will require some additional time for bureaucrats to review whatever new information becomes available and comment before the request is finally processed.

That being said: if there is going to be a further significant delay, the committee might consider issuing a temporary injunction on the matter as appropriate, as clarity is required as to whether the committee is taking up the matter, in contrast to comments by arbitrators GorillaWarfare and Thryduulf in the thread mentioned by Callanecc above which indicate the desysop was a self-request and discussion of his admin tools belongs at WP:BN (Special:Permalink/666705786#Kevin Gorman - compromised account desysop and block). –xeno^talk 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Only on the fact that some arbs have said we're discussing it which has effectively stopped a crat flipping the switch. Given that the desysop was not done by a decision of the Committee's they've effectively desysoped (or stopped a resysop) without the process of level I or II.

Given that the request was made more than 24 hours ago that requirement of RESYSOP has already been met, so now it's just waiting for a crat.

Thanks Xeno, that was my main point: if they don't want to resysop to happen at any time they need to post a desysop decision (which short of opening a case with an injunction) is the only to do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the requirements of RESYSOP are not yet met: the hold period "may be lengthened at a bureaucrat's discretion, if new information arises." In this case, it's been lengthened for an indefinite period of time, and clarity is required because it's not really fair for the request to be held in limbo (especially given Kevin's indication that he's unaware the reason for the delay). –xeno^talk 16:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all self-requested removals are grounds for automatic resysopping - such as resigning under a cloud. (I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here). --Rschen7754 15:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I do wish that whatever the concern is would at least have been directly forwarded to me by now. I have a feeling that whatever question there is I could answer on FB in about thirty seconds, and I suspect that taking longer than anticipated to return rights to someone who followed best practices in locking down a potential opsec issue may have the effect of discouraging fourthcomingness in the future, at least potentially. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a stalker comment. No idea what arbs are discussing but I've been involved in security related stuff. The issue isn't just insuring the privileged account is no longer compromised, there is also the question of how it was comprimised and questions of diligence to the rules regarding account protection. The easy, extreme case is Snowden. He fled the country and the immediate concern is shutting down his access. The next concern is how he got access and that led to the firing of his cubicle mate (Snowden keylogged his passwords but that should have never worked if the coworker followed policy - yes, the NSA has more restrictions than WP but the illegal keylogging wasn't a defense for the coworker and it was the "two"-party authorization that gave him access). It's never just "everything's okay now." Anyway, just 0.02 that security breaches and impersonations are more than just establishing the account holder. I would hope due diligence is a checkuser and account log to see if there are other accounts that are compromised and then analyzing any relationship. --DHeyward (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but the Committee didn't remove the tools. So if they want to decide when they are returned they need to officially remove them first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's debateable whether the committee removed the tool the request came from an arbitrator after all. There is private information involved in the case, whatever Kevin may state. I'm certain the committee will get back to us soon, there is no rush as long as the decision is the right one. Worm^TT(talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Permalink/666705786#Kevin Gorman - compromised account desysop and block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Except subsequent comments made in this thread made things less certain. –xeno^talk 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Less certain yes, but there is a strictly defined process the Committee needs to go through. They didn't (comments from individual arbs don't have any affect on desysops, the Committee's majority does), therefore it was/is up to the crats not the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In the future, hopefully the committee will issue a statement clarifying what happened and under whose authority the desysop occured, as soon as possible after it occurs. A simple WP:AC/N notice saying: "Yes, it was done under Arbcom Authority" or "No, it was voluntary desysop, that just happened to be coordinated by an Arb" would have avoided all this confusion. Such a request for official clarification was also made 9 days ago. Monty₈₄₅ 13:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that more clarity regarding the committee's precise involvement would have been optimal, but further discussion as regards the committee or any particular committee member's involvement in this matter should probably take place at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Kevin Gorman - compromised account desysop and block or user talk. Bureaucrats will continue to exercise caution, restraint, and discretion in evaluating any resysop request, despite the letter of any particular policy. –xeno^talk 14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/habibisgreat

• Editor habibisgreat has been blocked for vandalism (blanking pages). BMK (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I request removal of my sysop duties due to my inactivity. Thank you, - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. –xeno^talk 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Request temporarily suspended following formal request of the Arbitration Committee (Special:Diff/669478080). –xeno^talk 13:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Taken off hold, this request should remain open for at least 24 hours to allow further bureaucrat review and community comment. –xeno^talk 12:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

 On hold Request on hold pending comment from the Arbitration Committee.

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

Please re-grant my access to the administrative toolkit, which I voluntarily requested be withdrawn in August 2014. I was not "under a cloud" when I did so.

I wish to accompany this request with a statement on the record:

My intention for requesting access to the admin toolkit is to inspect and perform maintenance on page histories - merges, splits, and moves; and to appropriately use revision deletion in any cases where I discover content that contravenes our policies and requires removing from public view. I will also be open to answering requests made of me by users to look into matters of article history or revision deletions; whether in the course of normal encyclopedic production, or investigating possible hoaxes, vandalism, or administrative malfeasance. I am fully cognizant of the requirement that sensitive revision-deleted material may not be disclosed: I never have, and I never will.

The administrative toolkit and role is long overdue being unbundled, but that's exceedingly unlikely to ever happen. Therefore I must indicate which parts of it I have no interest in, and will voluntarily refrain from using. Things that I will not do if I am re-granted access to the admin toolkit:

• Block or unblock any accounts or IP addresses
• Issue any warnings
• Close any discussions
• Participate in any discussions at WP:AN or WP:AN/I, beyond making simple requests at the latter for urgent interventions if absolutely necessary
• Perform any non-"speedy" deletions.

I shall explain the limited degree of my re-engagement with this project on my user page in due course. If verification is required that this account has not been compromised, I can be emailed through the site in the usual fashion, or reached on Twitter as @hex.

Thank you.  — Scott • talk 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from bureaucrats

The desysop does not appear to be under a cloud, I don't see a reason that re-sysop should not take place, after the 24 hour waiting period Worm^TT(talk) 08:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, below

WJBscribe, below

This matter has been raised with the Arbitration Committee (Special:Diff/669231932); I suggest the request be placed on hold pending further comment. –xeno^talk 20:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Taken off hold at 12:43 (UTC), but please allow at least 24 more hours for additional comment and bureaucrat review. –xeno^talk 13:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions from bureaucrats

WJBscribe, below

Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (discussion)

Discussion will be re-opened after comment from the Arbitration Committee and remain open for at least another 24 hours to allow further community comment and sufficient bureaucrats time to review the request. Comments regarding user conduct may be made to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. –xeno^talk 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Re-opened. –xeno^talk 12:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Considering how well known Hex is for promoting off-wiki drama causing distress to many Wikimedians, and even today is attracting drama in support of Eric Barbour, I see every reason to expect a RFA where Hex/Scott's suitability for access to deleted information can be discussed by the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatelt 'crats do not have authority to refuse resysopping on those grounds. If you wish to petition for a desysopping, ArbCom would be the only appropriate venue. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Basically, what Salvidrim! said. This would require a Crat operating outside their charter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the policy that forces automatic resysopping rather than allowing you to not act on a request? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Crats can't be compelled to act if they choose not to, but it is unlikely that all of them will refuse to act and let it die on the table. It has never happened, and would have blowback from the community that elected them to do these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That said the timescales can be extended for a reasonable period if vetting is likely to take longer. I'd be happy to suggest that happens, but "creating drama" (which can be a very good thing) isn't a reason I'd accept for such an extension. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Having the ability to use trusted sysop privileges to fuel drama, or to intentionally cause personal distress to Wikipedians, off-wiki, can never be a very good thing. It is this aspect of the possible use of sysop privileges that would be examined in an RFA and that Scott would then have the opportunity to reassure everyone by setting their commitment to the mission of this project on the record. Having a Wikipedian call you a "notable Jimbotalk growth" is bad enough (quoting an off-wiki post by Scott this afternoon), but to have a trusted administrator do so when they create a discussion off-wiki in support of Eric Barbour, cannot be interpreted as collegiate behaviour. I seriously doubt that anyone being abused by being called a "growth" would feel the tools are in trustworthy and respectful hands. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently a longstanding problem. One of the participants in this drama cited a failed policy proposal, WP:BADSITES, as vindication for his view that what goes off wiki stays off wiki and is of no relevancy whatsoever here. Like all utterly illogical trains of thought on Wikipedia, this one isn't even halfway rational. Skimming the five archives of discussions on the badsites talk page, it's very plain that this is a divisive issue and not some badge of honor that should be worn by administrators and checkusers who choose to administer or moderate websites that attack editors, or use such sites as safe harbors for behavior that would get them sanctioned here. Since "conflict of interest" is a strange and alien concept on Wikipedia, it is not surprising that people feel that way, and become livid with rage when the status quo is questioned, viewing it as an attack on their liberty or whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That'd be WP:RESYSOP, Fae. As long as he is who he says he is and didn't resign to evade scrutiny or avoid sanctions, the admin right should be restored. Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions - was any of this alleged misconduct taking place at the time Scott resigned his access? Were any steps being taken in relation to it at that time? WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Without comment on this particular request (I haven't had the time to review it in detail), but it seems that objections to procedural resysoppings have become more common lately, which will in turn make administrators less likely to give up their tools in situations when it may be prudent for whatever reason (be it account security, personal reasons, needing a break, etc.).
  The community may wish to implement a lightweight desysopping process, but shoehorning it into the resysopping process as a "gotcha" is not the way to go. –xeno^talk 15:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe that Scott wants these tools for the benefit of WP, but rather to further his campaign, via his active membership at Wikipediocracy, against WP and also to persist in outing and harassing WP editors through that site. His latest one is just today [2] (posted here because public threads at WO have a habit of disappearing if the wrong public sees them)

Andy Dingley has a go at EricBarbour

Dingley has posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard that he thinks Metasonix should have a notice on it and its talk page, despite the glaring fact that EricBarbour has been blocked since 2009. Alison made this very obvious observation and removed the tag, but has run into resistance, including from notable Jimbotalk growth Coretheapple. Barrel-scraping in support of a grudge as usual.

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I really should support, since this is precisely the kind of thing that makes non-admins cynical about admins: their life tenure, the double standard applied to their conduct, the easy-peasy way they slip slide through the rules, the sheer idiocy of referring to their super-user status as a "mop" or as "tools." Yes, if we simply apply logic, this account needs "tools" the way an elephant needs an umbrella. But let's just be rigid and give him back his super-user status (his "tools") because it is the Wikipedia Way(r) to ignore common sense. Why don't we double down on the stupidity and make him a checkuser? Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I can see no reason in policy why we should deny this request and it should therefore be done at the end of the 24 hours wait period, unless another bureaucrat objects in the meantime. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  There's no rush - 24 hours is a guideline - nothing has to happen at the end of that period. I for one would like to allow sufficient time for members of the community to articulate their opposition so that we can consider it fully. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedians who discuss Scott's off-wiki campaign, have to be prepared to be targeted by friends of Hex off-wiki for daring to speak. Due to our policies (apart from when Arbcom sometimes choses to recognize it), off wiki behaviour is considered irrelevant to a complaint about behaviour on wiki. In response to my raising the issue here, poisonous allegations about my sex life have been posted in reply to Scott's thread, and this threatened more cyberbullying unless I cease writing here. It is not possible to separate Scott from the years long history of their off wiki toxic posts about the same Wikipedians that he is interacting with on wiki. He should be accountable for feeding banned internet trolls that act as his attack dogs by frightening others from sticking their head above the parapet. Anyone that habitually behaves this way, and is granted access privileges to our project, should expect to give a full account of their actions. The evidence is carefully kept off-wiki, just Google for the malicious crap and chumming of the waters he has chosen to post over the last few years, it's not hard to stumble across. --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Struck per request. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• A simple request for restoration of admin toolset resigned under non controversial circumstances. User is not subject to any sanctions and has given a detailed rationale for his request even though he is under no obligation to do so. I see no policy based reason for the bureaucrats to not proceed with the resysop. - NQ (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not to labor it, but "oppose" and "support" have no meaning here. You can provide the Crats with information about how resysoping would be against current policy, but their actions have nothing to do with consensus, only policy. This isn't RFA version 2. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment Being that there is cause for concern with returning the tools, are the burecrats here claiming "There is no current policy justification for withholding the tools" looking for something like a Writ of Mandamus/Writ of Certiorari from ArbCom/Jimbo to CYA for this new normal? Hasteur (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Could you explain what you mean? –xeno^talk 18:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'm getting a feeling of the Bureaucrats saying "Our hands are tied" in the face of the current policy. What I'm asking is if a motion by ArbCom (or a Jimbo proclamation) directing you to not restore the rights (or exercise discretion) in light of the circumstances. Hasteur (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If the Arbitration Committee were to issue a motion formally revoking Scott's administrative privileges, or a temporary injunction asking that the permissions not be restored for the time being as they are considering such a motion, this would be compelling. If someone does formally engage arbitration, please leave a note here and bureaucrats will decide whether to place the request on hold. –xeno^talk 18:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me that denying on the basis of there being a risk of a retired editor who left out of bitterness requesting the tools back for the purpose of off-site harassment is exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR exists for. Given there is no indication Scott intends to re-engage with Wikipedia beyond his "investigations", I think any decision on re-instating the tools should be deferred at least until Scott follows through on his promise to explain his purpose. Parallel to that, if Fae et al's concerns are viewed as credible, then I would suggest this request is made under a cloud, and it should be left up to the community to decide via a fresh RFA. Resolute 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think creating a desysop procedure adhoc is an ideal course: as noted below, these concerns belong at a separate venue and are being heard at arbitration now. –xeno^talk 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Granted, and now moot given Arbcom has gotten involved, but at the same time, I don't like "our hands are tied" as an excuse when concerns of this nature are raised. There's a gap here that may warrant a policy change. Resolute 23:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Fæ, Coretheapple, and Andy Dingley: as others have noted, the resysop procedure is not a fresh review of a users' suitability for adminship. Without comment on the present case, if you feel a user requesting procedural re-adminship should not have access to the administrative tools, you should consider engaging arbitration. Further to my comment above at 18:47, bureaucrats would be compelled to revoke adminship or reject a request for re-adminship if the committee were to issue a motion or engage desysop procedures. –xeno^talk 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a good many admins at WP who deserve a good desysopping, but ArbCom has a poor record of achieving anything useful in that direction.

PS - The Wikipediocracy thread has, as predicted, now been hidden. Still, there are plenty of WO-active admins left who can see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are not an investigative or disciplinary body. –xeno^talk 20:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rather amusing that a forum that routinely bitches about things being done in secrecy frequently lacks transparency itself. Resolute 23:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: I'd prefer that we focus on the actual matter at hand and keep comments not directly related to it to a minimum. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (request for hold)

• ArbCom have received private communication regarding this request and are considering it along with comments made on this thread. We would appreciate it if the 'crats would hold off on actioning this request for now until. Hopefully we'll get back to in less than 2 days, but we are busy at present so that is not a promise (sorry). Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  I've suggested it be placed on hold pending additional comment; if you think a formal comment will take more than 24-48 hours, please consider issuing a temporary injunction. (less relevant as user indicated they do not mind the delay) –xeno^talk 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  Seconded. --Dweller (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed Worm^TT(talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  I hope I'm not out of line in suggesting that you close this discussion in the meantime. The evil voodoo drama spirits seem to be running wild through the Wikipedia neighborhood of the interwebs today. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  My concern with that is that Thryduulf indicated the committee was considering "comments made on the thread"; suspending the thread would prevent further community comments (and without a formal case filing, it wouldn't be entirely clear where such comments should be made). There are also outstanding questions that would have bearing on the processing of the request if the committee declines to take any action. –xeno^talk 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noted. If it looks like it's going to take us more than 48 hours we'll issue a temporary injunction, but based on discussion so far it will be evening US time before we are in a position to know that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. –xeno^talk 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I well understand that the Arbitration Committee is busy with more pressing matters. I'm in no hurry with this request and am available for a drama-free chat by email at any time that suits.  — Scott • talk 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • While I understand that ArbCom intervention might be needed to put this request on hold from a "bureaucratic" point of view, it would also probably raise the drama level. Depending on the outcome, that might happen anyway (indeed, unfortunately, it's more likely than not to happen no matter how this is ultimately handled) ... but perhaps Scott's statement that he's in no hurry could be considered as his consenting to a temporary delay, thus eliminating the need for a formal ArbCom action at this early stage. (Noting that I'm not commenting on the merits of the request at all.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, NYB. I'm absolutely happy for a delay to this process, of whatever duration.  — Scott • talk 22:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Sensible as always. Thanks for your patience, Scott - we will hold for comment. –xeno^talk 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (break)

• Comment I have had no dealings with User:Scott that I recall, and as far as his involvement in 'pediocracy goes his essay/blog post on Liquid Threads is on its face a good summary of what not to do. Nonetheless it it a matter for consternation when an editor who has "flounced", instead of coming back to the project to edit comes back to look at deleted revisions - specifically saying "I will also be open to answering requests made of me by users to look into matters of article history or revision deletions".

It seems to me that this sets alarum bells off, especially in the context of 'pediaocracy, who, while they claim to have moved forward from Wikipedia Review, is still an essentially "bash Wikipedia" and specifically "bash [other] Wikipedains" club.

It would perhaps be useful to know what specific revision deletions User:Scott wants to look into, and for which users.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

You've completely misread my statement of purpose. Perhaps it was ambiguous - the answer to your question is none. Everything I mentioned is part of the standard admin toolkit, of which I only find several components worthwhile. Regards.  — Scott • talk 13:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify (since I didn't ask a specific question): are you confirming that you currently have no particular or general edits, histories, deletions, areas of interest or client users in mind? I do not necessarily have a problem if you do, provided you are happy to share that information openly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Yes, I can confirm that without hesitation.  — Scott • talk 17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to the observations made by Rich, which lead to the obvious query, I am strongly opposed to asking such questions. I realize the question has been asked and answered so this may sound like locking the barn door, but one of the things that concerns me about our organizational structure is the imbalance of power. My main concerns arise when an admin blocks and editor and the editor must find the right words to become unblocked. I think abuse is extremely rare but I want to make sure it is closer to nonexistent. On rare occasions, I have seen hints that the blocky must make statements unrelated to the original reason for blocking in order to be considered for unblocking. While understandable that's an abuse of power. I don't want us to fall into the same trap here. We've established a policy that if an admin voluntarily gives up tools not under a cloud they simply have to ask for them back. We do not get to say "now that you don't have the tools and you want them back is a few questions I'd like answered and if you don't answer them satisfactorily you might not get the tools back". I get that there might be special circumstances in this situation and I'll let ARBCOM investigate those off-camera. However, should there be a declination to return the tools, it had better be for an extremely strong reason and not simply that someone is unhappy with something Scott has done and now have a good chance to keep him from getting back the tools. On a related point, I do want to thank Scott for agreeing to a delay. ARBCOM does have quite a number of things on their plate, and I am sure that handling this on an emergency basis would not be easy. Giving them the time to sort this out on a more relaxed timeframe helps everyone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you S Philbrick. While I do agree that this isn't "RfA Round 2", I'm happy to answer some of the questions posed calmly down here, especially if they reveal some ambiguity in my original statement. That said, I also reserve the right not to answer questions if they start resembling RfA too much.  — Scott • talk 16:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, "imbalance of power" is the central issue here, but not as you portray it. Administrators have far more power than ordinary users, are indeed super-users. What Rich was doing was trying to inject a note of common sense into a process of reinstating super-user status to a person who has behaved in an offensive manner while navigating the rules so as to stay on the "right side of the law." Wikipedia administrators know the rules very well, they know how to "play the game," and I think there is a growing sense that they are just a bit too adept and cynical at working the system. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yet when it comes to situations like this, when super-users are dealing with members of their own fraternity, I sometimes think that Wikipedia is indeed a very rigid bureaucracy indeed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would never have even raised a comment, had Scott not specifically mentioned looking at revdels for other users - which is of course commendable honesty. I have not challenged his "right" to his bit back, nor would I (indeed I never supported, for example, the six month inactivity removal rule). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

• Comment Apologies but I no longer log into my old account anymore. It's been a couple years, but I still check community pages to see what is going on, and I feel inclined to comment here. There's really only one thing that bothers me about your resysop request Scott. You said you have no interest and do not plan to use the administrative bit for blocks or unblocks, issuing any warnings, closing any discussions, participating at discussions at WP:AN-AN/I (except simple requests) and performing any non-"speedy" deletions. If you perform any blocks, or undertake any actions that you specifically said you would not do if you were resysopped, will you have adminship removed from your account "under a cloud"? That being said, I don't like the thought of granting accounts advanced permissions but with limitations of what tools they will or will not use. If you're requesting to be an administrator again, just request all the toolkit back. Otherwise, anything you said you weren't going to do, and then decide to do one day will be scrutinized. 73.171.146.172 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, 73 (do you mind if I call you 73?). That's a perfectly valid question. There's no technical way of my not being able to do those things, which means that it has to rest on my honesty. While I don't know of any policy basis that would put me "under a cloud" for breaking my word (and forever tarring myself as a rotten liar), perhaps having broken such a public pledge on my part relating to administration would be sufficient for ArbCom to reconsider whether I should retain administrator privileges. Hard to say, really. Regarding your second point - I'm going to have to disagree with you there, I'm afraid. I've felt that the administrator role should be broken apart for the last ten years, and I'm not about to change my mind now. And really, there's no practical difference between me not doing those things now and not having done some of them in the past (or indeed any administrator not doing some of them, as many don't). There's only the difference of transparency and honesty on my part about my intentions. Best wishes.  — Scott • talk 15:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That was more or less my concern, if that you prepared to be called a 'rotten liar', should you happen to actually participate in areas you said you weren't, because I would expect a cavalcade of editors looking to lynch you should you block someone. I would prefer you just want the whole bit back. That being said as well, I have been a proponent of the tools being broken up in the past too, so I don't disagree there. It's just not realistic to make that promise because eventually, there will be an exception. 73.171.146.172 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, indeed. Let me put it this way: I hate blocking people. Hate. It. And I've got over 12 years with this project that going against my word would tarnish. The motivation for me to cleave to my intentions is gigantic.  — Scott • talk 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments (1) FWIW, the fairly large component of Wikipediocracy staff and trusted senior members who are also admins has helped to reduce the frequency (or at least persistence) of false accusations against admins who are in fact using deletions and revdels to protect privacy (as opposed to "covering something up"). I think that's part of what Scott has in mind.

  (2) One of the advantages to not having term limits on the bits is that "emeritus" admins can pick up the stray piece of litter they happen to wander across, help break a logjam, and be able to see the logs in a checking and balancing manner (this is why Wikimedia's wikis can't have only one checkuser or oversighter).

  (3) As long as an admin is still trusted not to use the tools in a way that violates policy, this shouldn't be a big deal anyway. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, SBJ. Regarding RevDel, yes, you've put it well. In the past I've found and fixed incorrect use of the feature by admins, acting completely on my own behalf as an admin, and have likewise been able to scotch misguided accusations of impropriety on Wikipediocracy against admins who've used the feature correctly. Revision deletion is a feature that is easily misunderstood, and it aids us all if someone is able to say, for example, "admin X hid those revisions because an IP user had inserted offensive comments about this BLP subject's family". That's what I meant by my original comments about the feature.  — Scott • talk 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree and commend such uses. However it is often extremely difficult to tread the line between keeping confidential information confidential, and explaining why something was done. Currently we tend to being over-confidential in general practice, but that is probably preferable to "over-sharing". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
      
      • Absolutely. It's not healthy to go around shouting about every revision deletion, but it's not healthy to keep completely schtum in the face of legitimate questions about administrative practice if they happen to arise. I've tread that line correctly in the past, and struck a similar balance in professional contexts also.  — Scott • talk 17:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (break 2)

Further discussion of this nature should probably be taken to user talk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're being so civil and reasonable, Scott! Here. But then you go off-wiki and say (as previously quoted by Andy): "Dingley has posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard that he thinks Metasonix should have a notice on it and its talk page, despite the glaring fact that EricBarbour has been blocked since 2009. Alison made this very obvious observation and removed the tag, but has run into resistance, including from notable Jimbotalk growth Coretheapple. Barrel-scraping in support of a grudge as usual." Don't you think it's a little cowardly and hypocritical for you to go off-wiki to engage in personal attacks ("barrel-scraping") and then put on a smiley face and be "Reasonable Scott" when you want something? And everybody's supposed to disregard what you say off-wiki, because them's the rules and gosh darn it Scott knows how to navigate them rules, doesn't he? Doesn't that sum up the situation here? Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Do you have a policy-based question you'd like to ask?  — Scott • talk 18:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Yes I do. If you feel that I'm a "Jimbotalk growth" and a "barrel scraping," why don't you say that to my face, here on Wiki, where you can be held accountable for what you say? Why do you go off-wiki to unload on people? And why do you expect people to ignore what you say off-wiki? For the purposes of this request you are making, shouldn't your off-wiki personal attacks be taken into consideration? Those are my policy-based questions. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC) You don't, then. If you do, I'll be happy to answer it.  — Scott • talk 18:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. "Barrel scraping" is a verb, not a noun. Oh, on the contrary, every one of my questions was policy-based, specifically to the extent that you are counting on rigid enforcement of the rules, contrary to WP:BURO, to get back your super-user status. Re your grammar lesson, when you said I was a "Jimbotalk growth," were you utilizing a noun or a verb? Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I think we're done here.  — Scott • talk 19:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Here, yes, because "Reasonable Scott" wants his super-user status back. But off-wiki we'll be getting Mr. Hyde in full force (at least after the attention dies down). Right Scott? Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The Arbitration Committee requests that restoration of adminship for Scott requested at the bureaucrats' noticeboard be suspended while the Committee communicates with him.

Supporting: Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, NativeForeigner, Euryalus, Doug Weller, Yunshui

Recusing: GorillaWarfare; Abstaining: Roger Davies

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

 Done. Comments or questions about the injunction itself should be at WT:ACN though bureaucratic implications of the injunction may be raised here. –xeno^talk 13:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "bureaucratic implications of the injunction"? You've already hatted a dialogue that I was attempting to have with Scott about the off-wiki comments that are the reason we are here. That's not the "elephant in the room," it's the room. In hatting Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (break 2) you utilized the ridiculous notation that it should be discussed at his user page. Really? In the discussion that you hatted, Scott refused to discuss the comments that he made off-wiki that are the very reason we are here, saying that such queries are not "policy based," whatever that means. "Bureaucratic" indeed. The utter cynicism of this entire proceeding is really bordering on self-parody. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Core. I am a completely uninvolved editor who has this page watchlisted. There is an awful lot to be concerned about in this matter, both in Scott's demeanor on and off wiki, and in the process itself, as Core notes. Jusdafax 14:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

So why not raise them at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary_injunction_regarding the_restoration_of_Scott.27s_admin_privileges? Arbcom has in effect called this one in, taken it from the crats and has opened that page for discussion. ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Jusdafax 14:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple I collapsed the discussion in part because it may be rendered moot by committee decision and also because Scott withdrew from the discussion: if you want to attempt to continue to the dialog you should feel free to do so on his talk page. The bureaucrats' noticeboard is not a forum for grievances - there are more appropriate venues to raise user conduct concerns, especially since the committee took up the matter. I must admit I find your criticism confusing: you asked us not to restore Scott's administrator priveleges because of a user conduct concern, we referred you to the correct body to review this concern, have suspended the request pending their decision, and we have proceeded cautiously at every step. What more would you ask? –xeno^talk 17:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

The committee has resolved most of the concerns raised, and after discussing the remaining issue directly with Scott, his replies have satisfied us. The Arbitration Committee thus rescinds its temporary injunction dated 1 July 2015 at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Supporting: Doug Weller, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, NativeForeigner, Yunshui, Euryalus, LFaraone, AGK

Opposing: Thryduulf, Courcelles, DGG, DeltaQuad

Abstaining: Roger Davies

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Rescinding the temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges

Thank you, I've re-opened the discussion. –xeno^talk 12:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for restoration of access to administrative toolkit (re-opened)

The injunction having been lifted, the discussion is re-opened and should remain for at least 24 hours before being processed. Please note a question from a bureaucrat above remains unanswered: "was any of this alleged misconduct taking place at the time Scott resigned his access? Were any steps being taken in relation to it at that time?". –xeno^talk 12:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The question would have been better phrased as "Were any steps being taken in relation to any actions by Scott at the time that he resigned his access?" I can also provide the answer, which is no. (For reference, noticeboards on 22 August 2014: WP:BN, WP:AN, WP:ANI.)  — Scott • talk 13:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno that we should leave this open for at least 24 hours. However, if Arbcom is satisfied that there is no (desysop-worthy) misconduct, what are we, the bureaucrats, going to find or hear to say that Scott either resigned under a cloud, or that there are other exceptional circumstances as to why we can't do the procedural resysoping? Typically, the weather report is the bureaucrats' responsibility (and so far it's a cloudless report), and the "exceptional circumstances" bit is really more of the Arbcom's problem. And Arbcom rescinded their injunction. So at this stage, I see no reason as to why we cannot resysop Scott. Maxim_(talk) 13:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion shouldn't've been closed. ArbCom is a kangaroo court and has no authority to issue temporary injunctions here.

Scott: just out of curiosity, are you open to recall? I didn't see a mention of it on your user page.

In re-reading MeatBall, I wish we could find a way to make Wikipedia feel more like that. It's freer and more fun and more honest, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically, it was only paused (and users were free to comment in the newer sections and did so). The committee's authority to issue a "temporary injunction", in my mind, flows from their ability to issue a WP:LEVEL2 desysop, indeed simply the "request for hold" was sufficient given Scott's patience and the built-in ability for resysop requests to be held for longer periods of time so that information gathering and bureaucrat deliberation can occur. Once we push the button to resysop, there is no policy-based way for bureaucrats to reverse or review the decision. To ignore a "request for hold" (even if issued in legalese) and go ahead with a resysop request without waiting for their comment would be imprudent: it would only serve to heighten the drama and tension while potentially force the committee to rush to action using Level 2 procedures. –xeno^talk 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• The last time that Arb jumped into a resysopping (ironically, the last resysopping we had) Xeno decided to just leave it open an addition 12 hours, since there had already been plenty of time for vetting, the Kevin Gorman case, in the most recent archive. That would seems to be a reasonable precedent since more than 24 hours have passed since the start of this, and any dirt that there was to dig up would have already been dug by now. Starting the clock from the time Arb signed off would be appropriate, as there has been ample "process" in this process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  The circumstances of this request are different; it is a Sunday (of a long weekend in some places); and, I promised to leave the discussion open at least another 24 hours when I placed it hold ealier. I'm sure Scott will indulge us leaving this open at least short while longer. –xeno^talk 16:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  That is fair enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, for the purposes of this discussion it should not matter whether Arbcom is satisfied concerning desysop-worthy misconduct that happened well after the voluntary self-desysoping. If voluntary self-desysoping does not happen under a cloud, procedural resysoping should be approved as a matter of course. The basic principle should be this: If Scott had kept the tools would he have them removed at this time? If the answer is yes, then procedural resysoping should not occur. If the answer is no, then voluntary self-desysoping followed later by a request for procedural resysoping should make zero difference. What we absolutely don't want is for anyone to be reluctant to lay down the tools because there may be difficulties when they try to pick them up again. The ability to freely turn the admin bit on and off is an important security feature. anything that motivates anyone to keep the tools when they have no intention of using them weakens Wikipedia's security by a small amount.

As a real-life example, consider my personal situation. I sometimes travel to China to work on engineering tasks related to the toy industry and am the target of sophisticated industrial espionage. I can still edit Wikipedia using TAILS and TOR on a laptop that never leaves my side (I am IP block exempt for just this purpose) and then changing my passphrase and reviewing all of my own edits when I get back to the US. If I were an administrator I would temporarily self-desysop before I left and ask for a procedural resysoping when I returned. Keeping the tools would be a security risk to Wikipedia if my account were to be compromised. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, bureaucrats were not appointed to determine the answer to the question "would [we]^? have removed them at this time?", that lays with the Arbitration Committee. And now, since the committee has not issued any permanent motion concerning Scott's administrative privileges, there seems to be no barrier to restoring Scott's administrative tools tomorrow unless it can be shown that the tools were relinquished to evade "scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions". –xeno^talk 16:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That Arb has jumped into the last two resysops is a bit odd, you have to admit. I try to assume the best of faith, but at the same time, Guy is correct. While I gave up the admin bit in January for a break due to real world issues, there was some hesitation that a single individual at Arb could jam up the whole thing and cast doubt on my admin eligibility. It was more than a passing concern, but in the end I took what I felt was a "risk", as it was the best thing for enwp. Losing the tools isn't that big of a deal, however, losing them due to unrelated or imaginary reasons would be a pisser. There isn't a trust issue with the Crats that I know of. There has been trust issues with Arb for almost as long as I've been an editor, often for good reason. I think the Crats handled it well both times, but both times, there was no issue in the end, which begs why the delay was so delayed by Arb, assuming the evidence was so compelling as to get them to ask you to stop, instead of waiting until after they had the bit back and starting formal proceedings if needed. It isn't Arb's job to normally review resysops, and they are batting 2 for 2 over the last month, pushing Crats into the political fray and making everyone a bit on edge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said earlier, such trends are likely to make administrators more reluctant to hand in their tools for whatever reason and this is unfortunate. The current policy at Wikipedia:Administrators#After voluntary removal is clear in that bureaucrats are asked to return the tools following voluntary removal except in very limited circumstances (account compromised or resigned "under a cloud").

Trying to expand the circumstances where bureaucrats decline to restore the tools via "opposition" to individual resysop requests is not appropriate: an amendment to the administrators policy should instead be sought if the community wishes bureaucrats to decline to restore the tools in other situations (though adding "coming back under a cloud" will only result in even more contentious resysop requests and further deter administrators from relinquishing their privileges).

Having the perspective of serving on the committee in the past (including as a sometimes-coordinator of decision-making), I understand the delay; and due to the nature of the objection, I can understand why they might prefer the ability to review deleted revisions was not restored until they had adequately reviewed the concerns and satisfied themselves that administrative privileges would not be used inappropriately (or in the previous case, that any remaining account security issues had been resolved).

I think we should be careful not to "blame the process": a set of unique circumstances was presented in both cases and the process was engaged to achieve the policy-based consensus result as set out in the various processes in place. We can criticize or try to change a process, but this should be done separately from individual runs of the process. –xeno^talk 19:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

More than 24 hours has passed and I have restored Scott's tools. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks.  — Scott • talk 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Looking at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015, it seems the notification bot did not run properly for July 2015. --Rschen7754 18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the bot may have gone on holiday with it's operator. I'll send out the notes presently while we await for their return (or replacement if Madman can no longer host this task). –xeno^talk 18:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone tried emailing Madman? The bot stopped running when WMF labs was out - so presumably it just needs to be restarted? I don't know anything about WMF labs - does it have administrators that can restart someone else's process or is Madman the only person who can do it? If we're reasonably convinced that he is gone and nobody else is planning to do so, I could write a process to take over the task. --B (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of, I was hoping they had email notifications enabled and wouldve gotten a note after Graham's message. –xeno^talk 23:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (I've now emailed them, in case. –xeno^talk 23:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC))

All existing crontab was disabled when Labs was bought back up on the 19th, but they also said that unmodified crontab would be switched back on on automatically on the 22 June, so that shouldn't had been the reason the bot not ran. (Shouldn't, not necessarily isn't!) -- KTC (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the admins for July by hand, please feel free to tell me if I screwed up. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also given them talk page messages and emailed them. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kharkiv07, much obliged. –xeno^talk 03:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dumb question: Useight (talk · contribs) had a logged action in April, which reset his or her timer, but why wasn't he or she desysopped in some previous month? Useight seems to have gone from August 2012 until April 2015 with no edits, deleted edits, or logged actions. (I'm not asking for the sake of desysopping him or her - just asking to understand if there is some other piece of the formula.) --B (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Because they have an alternate account (Useight's Public Sock) which is still active. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So is the bot (somehow?) making a determination that Useight's Public Sock belongs to Useight? Or is someone who is aware of the user's alternate name manually removing them? --B (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the perhaps there's an exception in the code? –xeno^talk 18:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. If we don't hear back from him in a week or so, I can undertake the creation of a replacement bot. This feature could be accommodated with a protected list of known socks that it would check before declaring an account to be inactive (although, technically, from reading Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators, it seems to say that the removal is based on no edits from the account - I don't see an exception for if the admin edits from a different account). --B (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can remember, someone pointed it out when the list of accounts was posted on here at least once. Whether the bot code was then updated to take that into account I don't know. -- KTC (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He did reply to let us know he restarted the task, it was the labs outage that caused the interruption in service. Thanks for your offer to take over in case.

As best I can tell, the exception was first discussed around Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 27#Requesting resysop after inactivity and has been observed ever since (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 29#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2013#September 2013), most recently discussed Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 32#Inactive admins.

I'm not sure if any other administrators remain active this way on their alternate accounts, but as long as the link is confirmed, it's not unreasonable to allow. Technically an alternate account is just a sub-account of the main; any sanctions would apply to the main account if inappropriate edits were made by an alternate account; so too should positive edits doing administrative or bureaucratic activity from an alternate account fulfill activity requirements (though a check-in edit once in a while would be preferable). –xeno^talk 20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Increasing the activity requirement for retaining bureaucrat rights and comment. –xeno^talk 21:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion. Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with the closure. I didn't see this until now due to RL activities. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 has been ready for closure for about twelve hours now. Just FYI. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie - I'm looking through it now. WJBscribe (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

You wait ages for one and then two come along at once... Would appreciate further input on this one. WJBscribe (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The dynamics between them differ though. While the first one was trending up at the close, this one was trending down. Noting that oppose vote #34, which came in after my vote #30, resonated with me. These two candidates share the issue of concerns about automated editing. Take note of the automated editing concerns raised regarding Cyberpower's current bot request for approval, noted in oppose #34. I don't believe a lot of the voters were aware of these issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please keep all comments about the RfA on the associated talk page (or the 'crat chat talk page). We can't be trying to find comments all over the place. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Since you guys seem to be on a fence here, if I could possibly answer any questions, feel free to ask.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Since our task is not to stand in judgment of you or your suitability, but to judge the community consensus as to your promotion, there isn't much more we could ask at this point. For my part, I think you are to be commended for your demeanour and honesty during this process. –xeno^talk 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for letting us know. Generally, we don't ask additional questions of the candidate during a 'crat chat unless it's on the talk page I linked above (and then, only rarely). The purpose of the chat is not to continue the discussion, but rather to evaluate the already-existing discussion. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, then I'm at least glad to provide you guys a challenge. You guys seemed to be a little bored these days. ;-)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes - if anything, you can say that you've got a goodly mix of us together for a meeting; unfortunately we've run out of spirits and the food is god awful (and Useight's "Sock" doesn't seem to have been washed in a while). –xeno^talk 02:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Useight aside, who was in charge of food duty? I'm chillin' with Chinese, while my roommates are getting drunk and partying. :p Fortunately, I don't party or drink much. :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I though Jimbo was supposed to bring the food. He is our benevolent dictator overseer founder, after all. I, for one, would like to see some of that benevolence manifested. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest arranging for steak, caviar, and lobster next time?—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for cutting the fun short, but it looked like it wasn't going anywhere and was a more sensible idea to withdraw on my own. But still, whoever is on food detail should at least bring the 3 things mentioned about. :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See this thread for details. →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see this concerning a vanished user who has returned to editing. BMK (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Commented there. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Good day,

I'd like to request my tools back. I left under a year ago of my own volition, under no cloud.

Thanks, MLauba ^(Talk) 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issues once the wait period has expired. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why Useight is still a bureaucrat and administrator? He hasn't made an edit in nearly three years, and his last bureaucrat action was also three years ago [3]. Per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts, shouldn't he have been removed from bureaucrat status by now? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

They are occasionally editing as User:Useight's Public Sock. Widr (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Further reading: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive_32#Inactive administrators. –xeno^talk 17:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel like this is practically the most asked question at WP:BN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• And it will get asked again. Maybe there's a reason it keeps being asked? Like, no connection on User:Useight to User:Useight's Public Sock? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Useight has a log entry this year where they state they edit as Useight's Public Sock. It's one of these things that aren't common knowledge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think perhaps a notice on Useight's userpage might be a good idea. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Under the "Alternate Accounts" section of my userpage, it lists Useight's Public Sock and Us8. If someone wants to put a large banner across the top or something to make the link more obvious, you have my approval. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you prefer editing with your alternate account rather than your regular account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I went back to school a couple years ago to get a second BS degree. Between that and working, I have very little free time. At home, I am almost always doing homework or sleeping. But I do get some time here and there when I am on campus or at my place of employment to poke around Wikipedia a bit. But I do not want to log into my main account from a campus or employer computer. I've had more time than usual the last couple of weeks, but my schedule is going to be filled to the brim again starting next month and going through the end of the calendar year. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit for you. Let me know if you have any questions. Hopefully it's more obvious now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Useight's Public Sock. Good luck with your studies! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Useight. I think it is great that you still find time to edit Wikipedia amidst such constraints on your available time. You've archived more insight on Wikipedia than many of us will ever come to know. I for one, am a beneficiary; having enough good fortune to have seen some of that archive, and enough good sense to adopt the advice you were kind to have left. I am glad I noticed this discussion, and its perfunctory theme. For it reminded me to give thanks, for all you have done to make this place better, and to wish you the very best. It has been my privilege to watch you excel. With esteem--John Cline (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Has a crat perhaps missed adding Rich Farmbrough's unsuccessful RFA to the alphabetical list? I wanted to look at it, to check a certain matter. Am I missing something? It's not one of those <expletive> cases where the user is actually called Throatwobbler Mangrove, is it? Bishonen | talk 10:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

No, apparently not.. I found it eventually in the chronological list. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Phew, no excess polystyrene (and it's Throatwarbler Mangrove, for the cognoscenti ). -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd forgotten all about the alphabetical list of unsuccessful candidates - I thought it was now a category like the alphabetical list of successful candidates (Category:Successful requests for adminship). WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about the successful category — I guess I never look up those. :-) Perhaps the unsuccessful list ought to be a cat too? Bishonen | talk 17:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

@Avi: Sometimes one and sometimes the other, I guess. I swear I was googling for the "Throatwarbler" version, but this page came up prominently. Anyway, they're both very good account names. I think I'll just create me a new sock or two. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

There is an unsuccessful RfA category as well at Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship along with the alphabetical lists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As a result of this arbitration case the Committee has resolved to desysop Kww (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship. Thank you for your assistance, please action as required. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator and edit filter manager permissions (per here) have been removed. –xeno^talk 14:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That should be logged here as well, yes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus, it's taken care of now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The time run out, but people are still voting, and, what is worse, commenting each other votes. I would appreciate at least closing the voting. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion#Comments moved here from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to run but I haven't finished all the janitorial stuff related to the close... can someone help out? Thanks! --Maxim_(talk) 01:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Chipping in as a non-crat, but I think I've taken care of it - let me know if I missed anything. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 01:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dylan620. -- Avi (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avi: you're welcome! --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the template that you use to close 'crat chats, but I'd just like to point out at the bottom when you click "related discussion" it links to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana, on all of them. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Historically, there seem to be a few; I applied the most used one. Thanks for your help! -- Avi (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avi: Could you tell me which template you substituted? Or did you use a script? - NQ (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

NQ I may be wrong but I think they've all just been copy/pasting from old ones. They also need to substitute in some of the variables, I'll throw a template together to make life easier. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Copy-pasting the old ones. I've never gotten around to writing a template; I probably should. -- Avi (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Template:Bureaucrat discussion top and Template:Bureaucrat discussion bottom. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kharkiv07. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Timotheus Canens for fixing my limited knowledge of parser functions. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I requested an usurpation and am not sure if anyone is keeping an eye on the page. Is there a global renamer out there who wouldnt mind taking a look at my request? Its on here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Thanks! The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 23:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In future, please have some patience. There was nothing time-sensitive about either of your requests, and the usurpation page explicitly says there is a delay in processing to allow for objections. Please note your existing name may be considered misleading and someone may file an WP:RFC/N concerning it. –xeno^talk 10:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that user:Caperescientiam may have attempted to change their user name to user:James by simply moving their user and talk pages. AFAICS there has not been a request for a name change and nothing in the logs. Please confirm.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. -- Avi (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ Rob^Talk 05:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As promised at the end of Liz's RfA, I've started a page for community discussion of RfX. Please read the really short, simple rules carefully. Thanks. Wikipedia:Reflections on RfX. --Dweller (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Scientizzle (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Andrew Levine (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Xoloz (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}
• Noldoaran (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 03:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as Xeno pointed out here, due to the delay in notifying them they shouldn't be desysoped until the 5th. Kharkiv07 (T) 04:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that. Makes sense. Graham87 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh. Probably due to my screwed up formatting the bot didn't send the second round of e-mails and messages... I'm on it. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup. So what appears to have happened is (for people who don't know), the bot was down at the beginning of the month so I complied the August admins by hand, but apparently the bot wasn't happy with my work and it didn't send the second round out. I just did it now by hand. Sorry for the delays and confusion I've caused, but per precedence you should probably give it until the 12th. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

20 lashes with a wet noodle! In other news, thank you for your continued supporting of this process! -- Avi (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 On hold - Users notified late, so please do not action until 12 August 2015. WJBscribe (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - have notifications been sent out to the next batch? WJBscribe (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Question,".

.. and I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. In general what is the current "discretionary range" with respect to judging a RfA? (within a point or two). I understand each case is judged individually, but generally speaking - within a point or two: What constitutes a "pass", a "no consensus", and a discretionary judgment call (or 'crat chat'). I won't fuss over the answer, I'm just curious about the current norms. Thank you, — Ched :  ?  00:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a set answer, especially since it isn't really based on pure numbers but our collective understanding/interpretation of the actual discussions. There are successful RfAs that went to chat with 71% and there are unsuccessful RfAs that went to chat at over 73%. It also depends on which 'crats are participating, as we are all human and not robots (at least last I checked, I have my doubts about WJBScribe). -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What gave it away, is that I never tan regardless of amount of time spent in sunshine? WJBscribe (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

LOL about Will. OK, thanks. Basically I'm inferring that the lower 70s are the "discretionary range" then. All I wanted to know. — Ched :  ?  01:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ... and I wouldn't WANT "bots" doing the call. — Ched :  ?  01:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post the same question. While we all know the discretionary range is 0%-100%, at WP:RFA, the "rule of thumb" discretionary range is 70-80%. Thus it looks like several bureaucrats at the Liz RFA overrode the community's will by claiming 73.53% is the "high end of the discretionary range." The whole 'crat chat was a bit of a fiasco, which as an opposer I actually didn't mind -- it was entertaining -- but the discretionary range issue is a bigger and ongoing mystery that should probably be addressed. Townlake (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It should indeed. I've always understood the range to be 70% to 80%, so here is another oddity in a very odd Rfa, that I would now suggest to be tainted. Jusdafax 01:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's late and I'm tired, so perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying, but it is called the discretionary range precisely because either result might be delivered based on the bureaucrat's determination of consensus. It's not a by-the-numbers call. If RFA in the so-called "low end" of the discretionary range were always closed as unsuccessful, it wouldn't be considered part of the discretionary range. –xeno^talk 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you completely missed the point. Townlake (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to make it more clearly then, or give me 12 hours to recharge. No one said it was at the "high end of the discretionary range". Andrevan and MBisanz did make comments as to the location in the range, and the implications for handling, but their comments were more nuanced than saying "high end of the range" (MBisanz wrote "higher end", which is not the same). –xeno^talk 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need to get some sleep. Townlake (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax - I don't see how anything was/is tainted. 3 out of 4 people supported, which seems to fall in the gray area. The crats are discussing it as a group and will make a decision as a "group" (rather than one individual making a unilateral decision). Remember - many of the crats, (at least the ones elected in the past 8-10 years) were selected with VERY high support stats from the community in RfB. Personally I would have opposed, but hadn't been active (hence my note in the neutral section). I could elaborate on my reasons - but there's no need or call for that. In the end, there's a real person hanging in the balance here with very real feelings. I think a lot of the comments made on various pages were made with a poor choice of words. (due to emotions and strong feelings on their own desired outcome). In the end - this is a volunteer website -no more, and no less. Personally (again), I'm not going to be all that upset either way. There are two sides to this, and each believes their own perspective to be proper. I was only asking about numbers, and I really think it's time to drop the stick on this debate. Let the crats do their jobs - and if something goes awry down the road, there are courses of action to follow. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I just changed WP:RFA to reflect what I guess is consensus now. Hopefully that puts an end to this and everyone can do more productive things. Townlake (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That's how it's been for years, which I've said many times but have been dismissed on. There have been zero RfAs in at least the past eight years that failed with 75% or greater support. Ergo, 70-80% hasn't been true in a long time even though everybody likes to pretend it is. Wizardman 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well stated. And nobody's reverted me yet... Townlake (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, I still think it's 70-80%. Hasn't happened ≠ can't happen. I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of 75%+ RfAs failing with strong oppose grounds, and can't really see the advantage of removing the discretion for 75-80% which will only cause extra drama if an RfA is ever unsuccessful in that range. WJBscribe (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Will on this; black swans and all. Just because something hasn't happened does not mean it could not happen. -- Avi (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've modified your change a bit, Townlake. -- Avi (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Avi, your change is excellent. Townlake (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

How about something like "less than two out of three usually fails, more than five out of six usually (or four out of five, if you like that 75% upper number) passes" the advantage of a ratio vs. a percentage is that many people see a percentage as being a bright line, but see the same percentage in ratio form as being more of a rough guide. Plus I sort of like dropping the lower number to 66.6% from 70% if the actual decisions range dip below 70% every so often. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is not community support for lowering the "RFA consensus" bar below 70%, absent extraordinary circumstances. If you don't believe me, start an RFC. Townlake (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the above comment by WJBscribe ("...Hasn't happened ≠ can't happen... [I] can't really see the advantage of removing the discretion for 75-80% which will only cause extra drama if an RfA is ever unsuccessful in that range."}, Please explain why it is OK to have the documented usual upper limit 5% over the actual in-practice limit, but not OK to have the documented usual lower limit 3.3% under the actual in-practice limit. The documented usual limits should be about as far away from the actual in-practice limits on both ends. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends a bit on how one chooses to define the term "discretionary range". If we define it as "the range over which the 'crats can pretty much freely choose either outcome without resulting in a massive shitstorm", it is roughly 70-75%. (70% is a big psychological barrier, and there is consistently a tremendous uproar on the rare occasions where 'crats promote a below-70 candidate.) Over the 75-80% range, 'crats can reject a candidate, but rarely do, and they need to have some pretty potent reasons to back up their choice. Those rejections are rare, and often result from unusual circumstances (problems coming to light late in the RfA process, and the like); these days it's more likely that a candidate will be encouraged to withdraw, or the RfA will be suspended, or the RfA period extended to allow a firmer consensus to build. I can't think of any over-80s that have failed, but it would probably take evidence of serious shenanigans (systematic meat/sockpuppetry among voters, revelations of egregious misconduct by the candidate after the voting closes but before promotion, etc.)—the edgiest of edge cases, really.

In principle, there are no written rules on this issue and 'crats can select whichever outcome they want for any RfA, no matter what the vote count is. (Per Townlake, the 'crats "discretionary range" is 0-100%.) In practice, the community's expectations (and reactions) tie their hands pretty tightly. We generally expect the 'crats to serve as "moist robots" who just count the votes and push the button any time we're not in that low-70s window, and we accept that in that discretionary window they can just flip a coin. One of the major reasons why the 'crats are generally seen as highly trustworthy by the community is that they almost never do anything but follow the numbers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"One of the major reasons why the 'crats are generally seen as highly trustworthy by the community is that they almost never do anything but follow the numbers." I'd also like to think it has something to do with the openness and honesty with which we handle the entire RfX process (including cratchats), but I am 1) probably naïve 2) admittedly biased and 3) an unabashed fisher of compliments . -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

To offer a bit of reflection from the deep past (i.e. 2007), I previously made this image. One of the take aways from that exercise was that (at that time) all RFAs that ended above 78% support succeeded and less than 10% that ended below 73% would pass. Suggesting that the practice at the time (i.e. 2007) was for a typical discretionary range of roughly 75 +/- 2%, but that bureaucrats would in rare circumstances pass a few percent of RFAs that fell below that. (Including one that passed with a mere 61% approval. Perhaps notably, several years later that user was desysopped by Arbcom for "exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools"). I won't claim to know how the discretionary range has evolved since then. For one thing, since we have far fewer RFAs today than we did back in the day, there is less data to compare. Dragons flight (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Crats are entitled to close anywhere between 0 -100% and Crat Chat is not mandatory at takes place only at the discretion of the Closing crat.Here an crat closed a RFA without a crat chat at 67% and felt it was not required in this case and it was discussed in length in this noticeboard Disputed closure of Davemeistermoab to admin . Through most disagreed with his closure.This section What is the Point of this is relevant.Now the crat was uninvolved and did not abuse his tools and used his discretion which was clearly under his powers even if he appeared to err in his judgement.Arbcom will not a take a case as there is no abuse of powers and nor can a steward .Another crat will never unilaterally undo another crat's closure ie reopen and reclose a RFA it has happened only once in recent memory with the consent of the originally closing crat in NA1000's promotion as the crat had voted in the RFA. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That 67% close was indeed a special situation. I remember it well. I supported the candidate , and was one of those who tried to explain in great detail at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab why most of the opposes were simply wrong. The closer ( Rdsmith4, now sadly inactive -- for he was universally considered entirely trustworthy) apparently accepted the arguments that I and others made on this point. Tho there was no bcrat discussion, the long prior discussion on the talk page over the point at issue by those the crat explicitly considered knowledgable in the area served pretty much the same purpose--it was not an idiosyncratic or unconsidered decision, and it was explained in detail. Now, this was back in 2009, and things were a little less formal then; I suspect that today in the same situation there would have been a consultation with other crats as well. And FWIW, the editor, now Moabdave, though only moderately active, seems to have done consistently reliable & uncontroversial admin work, none of it relating to anything about any of the issues raised. DGG ( talk ) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The context here was only for the Larger question of crat discretion in this closure and only from a purely procedural point of view not about the particular closure or about the Crat or the candidate . Many users appeared to clearly disagree and dispute the closure even after explanation given in talk and later even more detailed explanation in the Crat Noticeboard discussion and his nom in his RFB stated he would have closed it differently .This was a clear case of crat discretion and a Crat closing as per his best judgement and in good faith and using his discretion independently and beyond numbers .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.

“

Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity[1] for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship. ^ 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 subscriber to the bureaucrats' mailing list or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks.

”

To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. –xeno^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cross-posted here from user talk. –xeno^talk 20:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Activity requirements and former 'crats

Hey all. I see that there are new activity requirements for bureaucrats. I assume they apply to those of us who have resigned or otherwise given up our 'crat bits (meaning that, after three years, we can't just request the bit back at BN, but must go through another RfB). It's not a big deal for me, since I happen to have the user talk pages of several other 'crats on my watchlist (and I don't really intend to seek the bit again without another RfB anyway), but I don't think I was ever notified of either the discussion or its closure/implementation. Will former 'crats be included in the future notifications in the same way that current 'crats are? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, mea culpa. Since these affected users weren't notified, they ought to have some grace period to have the rights restored so that they can meet the requirements if they so desire. And I'll inform them in a few hours (unless someone wants to do it for me).

How long should the grace period be? –xeno^talk 19:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A week? The two users who are currently eligible and active (The Rambling Man and Writ Keeper) are reasonably active (and I think recrat eligible). Others were decrated for inactivity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

But there is a change in process whereby the rights they could have previously requested back would no longer be returned. So I would think we should give them until at least 1 October 2015 (the first day any bureaucrat would be subject to removal for not meeting activity requiements). –xeno^talk 20:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC) (Are you saying the other former bureaucrats are 'lengthy inactive' already?)

That sounds reasonable, though like I say I'm not really planning on taking advantage of it. My main issue is just to make sure that former 'crats are to be included in the things like the one-month's-notice posts. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've notified the affected users that as of 1 October 2015, any former bureaucrat who has not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years that wishes their bureaucrat permissions restored will need to request reinstatement at RFB and if they intend to return to bureaucrat activity, please request restoration of permissions before 1 October 2015 or three years passes since your last bureaucrat activity, whichever is later. –xeno^talk 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the former crats notified would not be entitled to restoration of their tools under the current rules (i.e. controversial circumstances etc) but I guess we can still say "no" if they request the tools back. WJBscribe (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not check for this when I sent these messages, only if they were active in the last 36 months. –xeno^talk 22:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As a non-crat in this discussion, I think that's a reasonable date. Mkdw^talk 22:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the RFA currently running right now, I've slightly reconfigured the sections to allow comments of a general nature to occur while alleviating concerns of them being given undue prominence when being placed above the numbered list sections (special:Diff/677068232 / Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#"Discussion" section). If anyone feels this is problematic from a procedural standpoint, feel free to revert. –xeno^talk 23:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The mentioned RFA is closed; I've pushed the change to the RFA template itself (Special:Diff/677147130). –xeno^talk 12:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that User:Ceradon has withdrawn their nomination, can some bureaucrats close the RFA? Abecedare (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was coming here to point out the same... As Ceradon hasn't shut down his own RfA, it probably would be good if a 'Crat "officially" closed this one as "Withdrawn" now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This RFA is final (withdrawn) as of 04:07:48, 21 Aug 2015. Nakon 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember that a withdrawn RFA can be closed by anyone, including a participant in same. –xeno^talk 10:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I felt like this specific one probably should have been closed by a 'Crat. YMMV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope that this RfA doesn't have a chilling effect on people being willing to own up to past misdeeds, although I worry that it might. As I see it, this RfA failed because Ceradon only partly owned up and insisted on pursuing a second RfA on a false basis (i.e. that the previous non-disclosure was an oversight rather than deliberate). That was not only untrue but also implausible. Had he simply admitted that he had misled everyone the first time round, had been feeling guilty about it and now wanted to come clean, I suspect the RfA would have been successful. The lesson that is taken away from this is hopefully that it is best to own up to everything, and not that one shouldn't own up to nothing at all... WJBscribe (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I echo Will's statements. -- Avi (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I still have a feeling that we don't know the entire story behind all of this, first the unexpected first RfA, the disclosure a month later and then the rush to have a second RfA. I think he might have succeeded if he had let some time pass before a second RfA where people could have had their questions addressed prior to the actual RfA. But these suspicions are unimportant unless Ceradon wants to eventually run a third time.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The chilling effect on disclosure will come from how much support the candidate got after admitting to lying in the RFA. Despite the obvious and admitted dishonesty, the RFA still had 2/3 of voters determining the candidate was trustworthy at the time of withdrawal. The vote was close enough to 70% that we can expect more deceptive RFAs in the near future. Townlake (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Townlake, I think you misunderstand my point. There might be a chilling effect on trusting candidates, but that wasn't what I was talking about. We want users to be able to own up to mistakes and believe they will get a fair hearing. The concern I expressed was that people might think this RfA failed because of the admission about historic misconduct, rather than due to the fact that there were issues with conduct in relation to the re-run RfA (i.e. pretending to have forgotten about the previous accounts at the time of the first RfA). WJBscribe (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the time zones, some voters might not have seen the statement of the candidate made in the middle of the European night. I only saw it when RfA was closed. (It would not change my vote, just for the record).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. The vote was 45/16 at the time of candidate's "The Complete Truth" post, and it finished 54/27, so votes were trending negative... that said, let's not be overly polite here. The candidate's ridiculous explanation in the self-nom of what happened should have raised a lot more red flags among voters than it did. Townlake (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I personally was the first opposer. My point is that when I yesterday went to bed, the situation looked like the candidate was genuine, though I found it strange how one can forget they edited Wikipedia, made 3K edits and were indefinitely blocked by arbcom, but at least it looked kind of plausible - they so much wanted to forget bad experience that they unconsciously did. When I woke up, it looked completely different, but by that time the RfA was already closed, so even if I voted support and wanted to change my vote, that would be too late.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Some chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, others continued to probe the explanations given. Ultimately that resulted in the true state of affairs being known and the RfA being withdrawn. Overall, I think the process did alright in this instance. WJBscribe (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please desysop Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under WP:LEVEL1 procedures, per ArbCom vote. For the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please ignore, as this was a so-called "emergency desysop" this has been done by a steward. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Followup on Malik Shabazz

In light of Malik Shabazz's resignation (and the full protection of his user page), shouldn't a hard-working Bureaucrat stop on by to remove the Admin topicon and userbox, etc. from Malik Shabazz's user page?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done -- Avi (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm resigning my tools, per this. --ceradon (talk • edits) 06:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done It takes a lot of courage to come clean when you are not in danger of being caught. Good luck with your fresh start! -- Avi (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting that the reconfirmation RfA is here. 28bytes (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• A quick note to mention that as a result of this resignation, I've also deactivated Ceradon's UTRS account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Question".

I asked for my admin bit to be removed on 7 December 2014 and I would like to know if I can have it back. I know that there was a bit of drama over my ArbCom candidacy and some old history of mine was brought up, for which I voluntarily resigned my bit after some friends considered it was the best outcome. However, after almost a year out I come back with the intentions to fix what I did wrong in the past as well as offer my help, and I'd like to do it with my admin bit. So, my question is, can I have it back or do you crats believe I would need to go through a new RfA? → Call me Hahc21 00:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• For anyone wishing to consult the original desysop request: here it is. It was a simple request-done-thanks with no discussion surrounding its circumstances at the time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "A simple request" may be technically true of the formal request, but you've conveniently left off the extremely acrimonious discussion preceding it. (I don't think I've ever dealt with Hahc21 in any context, and have no opinions pro or anti, but it was hardly an uncontroversial routine resignation.) ‑ iridescent 00:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• A question I would ask, would Hahc21 have the support of the community for adminship now if he were to run for RFA again. I might be wrong but I believe the reason why we have a process to re-admin editors who have voluntarily given it up was because, in theory, there wouldn't be a change in community trust. I haven't read too much into it, but if would appear that if Hahc21 hadn't give it up voluntarily, he likely would have had to do so under a cloud or by Arbitration motion. Mkdw^talk 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really know if I would have ended at ArbCom. I was willing to work on the issues that were brought up at the moment but they wanted my head and my admin bit in a silver plate. I was never a lover of drama so I decided that resigning and retiring for a while would be enough to get rid of it before I moved onto the issues that mattered. I understood the concerns that were presented back then, although it was proven that most of them were a thing of the past. The fact that I was running for ArbCom was, I believe, what ended up creating so much drama. Now that I think of it, I shouldn't have ran in the first place. → Call me Hahc21 02:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hahc21, your comment explains perfectly why your resignation of the tools was under a cloud. First you obviously think there was a possibility that it would go to arbcom, since you don't really know if it would have ended up there. Next you realized that others wanted your admin bit. The last piece is that you decided that resigning your admin bit would get rid of the drama. Your resignation did get rid of the drama and that makes the cloud. -- GB fan 13:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• (From the peanut gallery) My understanding of this circumstance was the resignation was "under a cloud", and I would personally strongly advocate that an RfA for readminship be held in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to second IJBall's concerns, and others above. A new Rfa is called for, in my view. Jusdafax 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'll third IJBall; when the desysop happened, it very much had the feeling of being a quick request to forestall an "under a cloud" development; an automatic resysop would be a bad misjudgement of the events. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly believe this needs a new RfA. wctaiwan (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• As far as I'm concerned, it was under a cloud. When asked for his recall conditions, he resigned his mop. I can't find all the diffs to the back-story right now but the gateway is here and at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: Hahc21 it appears you relinquished your permissions in the middle of an ANI thread in which your administrative actions and history were being scrutinized; your resignation had the effect of stemming further scrutiny as the thread was closed soon after; and had you not resigned at the time, sanctions may have resulted. I'm sorry, but I do not think an automatic restoration is permitted in these circumstances. –xeno^talk 11:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  In light of the ANI thread mentioned above and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21#Background (the request for a contributor copyright investigation was made just a few days before the resignation), I agree that Hac21 resigned in controversial circumstances. Hac21, I am afraid you will need to submit a new RfA to the community if you wish to have your admin access restored. WJBscribe (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. → Call me Hahc21 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Ask ArbCom to remove the cloud. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Arbcom doesn't have any authority to remove the cloud. The cloud was due to a discussion at ANI. There is no provision that I'm aware of whereby Arb can just overrule the legitimate concerns of the community at a prior discussion with a wave of a wand. That isn't what Arb is empowered to do and attempting to do so would result in a lot of pitchforks and torches being bandied about, as it would be seen as a power grab. Their authority is only to remove the admin bit, not grant it. His only choice is a fresh RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  Arbcom does have the authority to grant the bit. It has the authority to overrule ANI and RfA, and has done so. ArbCom represents the community; they don't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  I feel like doing this would be to the detriment of Hahc21. I would be surprised if ArbCom advised anything but re-running for RFA. It's not like the concerns at the ANI were unmerited. Also, and I'm just assuming, I doubt Hahc21 would want to get the tools back that way. Hahc21 cared enough about the community input to voluntarily lay down the tools after all. Mkdw^talk 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  My intention here was to clarify a doubt. I ran for RfA last year because I thought I could help the community, which I did during my tenure as admin. I made mistakes, as we all do, and I voluntarily resigned when it became clear to me that keeping the tools was against the community's interest. I do believe that the way I was pitchforked and witch-burned was an overkill, but there's no point in discussing the past. I have no interest in running for RfA again. There's nothing enjoyable about it, and most people on this website don't value the job administrators do. → Call me Hahc21 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Commenting as an individual arbitrator, not on behalf of the committee: ArbCom can remove clouds, but only if they are entirely of arbcom's making - doing so would be unusual though, and the clouds were the community's this situation. We do have the power to resysop someone who we desyopped, but doing so when the deysop was anything other than temporary has fallen out of favour (e.g. remedies these days tend to be "may apply for adminship at RfA after 1 year" rather than "is desysopped for 1 year"). While we may still have the power to overrule RFA (I haven't checked) I suspect that this is a bit like most of the British Monarch's powers - we have them only until we try to use them. I can confirm that we have no plans to overrule the community with respect to Hahc21. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is inline with what I was trying to say above, that Arb doesn't generally mess around with stuff that Arb didn't initiate, nor make sweeping declarations that overrule a clean community finding. There isn't a precedent that I'm aware of. Obviously they can clarify their own previous rulings, but I haven't seen them get involved where the community clearly can handle the matter. As for overruling an RFA....if that day ever comes, it will be an interesting day indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hahc21: - you say that you come back with the intentions to fix what you did wrong in the past. You don't need the admin tool to help to fix the mess and damage you have caused. You are the person responsible for problematic edits made in the past and you should be the first person helping to fix the damage instead of childish retirement. You wasted time of other editors who had to check and clean up your contributions. I'm sorry but I can't trust you when the first thing you do after your comeback is asking for restoration of your admin status. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bureaucrats - this is to let you know (in case your in-boxes haven't already been lit up) that I have sent an email to your mailing list that is time-sensitive. Risker (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Received. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Xeno and I assume others, I know you are trying some new techniques to clerk RFAs, work out some bugs, finding some work, some don't. It's a process that requires errors in order to find the right method, and there is no way to instinctively know the perfect way, only trial and error will get the job done. Anyway, I support the efforts, and while the current RFA is a bit of a mess in terms of how much discussion is going on, I think it would have been either way. I think many of us are glad to see a Crat at least put some some effort into trying new ways to clerk RFA. Hopefully, you won't be discouraged as it will take time to dial in the right methods. Anyone looking at the big picture at RFA should understand this. I expect it will take a few RFAs to fully dial in the best structure, where everyone gets heard but where long discussions don't distract from the participation of others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree to a point, and I too thank Xeno in particular for his efforts here. But I wish this experiment would have happened in an RFA with less initial opposition. The whole RFA has been handled sloppily since HiDrNick's initial ham-fisted "BOLD clerking experiment;" most of what's happened after has been necessary to clean up and mitigate Nick's mess, and has mostly involved refactoring editors in the oppose section. Moving other editors' comments normally isn't supposed to happen without a direct reason, which we didn't have in this case unless you invoke IAR. I encourage future experimentation like this to occur in RFAs where it doesn't look like experimenters are potentially influencing the result. Townlake (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concerns, but it is hard to tell when and if it is affecting the outcome. In this case, it might have caused confusion and helped feed some frustration, but I don't think it will prevent him from getting or not getting the bit. I think that no matter what you do, experimenting is going to be a little disruptive but necessary. In some ways, a very contentious RFA provides a good test bed. For example, A 160-0 blow out doesn't give you the chance to test moving opposing discussion and testing reactions, etc. We both agree that experimenting (cautiously) is a good thing, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Xeno, thanks for working on this. I'm here to ask that rather less refactoring should be done at future RfAs. It used to be the case that civil and on-topic discussion remained in situ, and only when a thread went off-topic, or turned into a squabble, or otherwise became disruptive, only then was stuff moved to the talk page (where it wasn't usually hatted). I'm urging a return to this for one positive reason and one negative one:
  • The positive one is that, so long as a thread remains civil and on-topic, it can contribute helpfully to other editors' assessment of the candidate and to their thinking about RFA in general. For example, the current one is being used in part not only as an RFA for Wbm1058, but as a sort of RFC on how much content work people think a candidate admin needs. This is good: the discussion has helped me (and others, I imagine) think about this issue, and it's noticeable that several editors who seldom vote at RFA have come along to say their piece on it (both supports and opposes).
  • The negative reason is that RFA is in part a discussion, and if comments are too readily shunted off to the talk page, or a subsection at the bottom, or hatted, then people may feel that their comments are being kicked into the long grass and ignored. This raises the temperature. In the present RFA it's history now, but I think it's unfortunate that this time, when threads are copied elsewhere, the whole thread apart from the vote itself has been deleted from the support/oppose sections, rather than just deleting the disruptive part as has been usual in the past. Many of the threads that have been sent to the bottom this time were short, civil and relevant, and would have been better left alone.

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer them stay in situ as well, but this leads to concerns that the participant has to defend their 'slice' of the support/oppose/neutral section and some feel unfairly put-upon. Perhaps an RFC to find consensus on the best way to handle this would be (and indeed if bureaucrats should even be stepping in before the bell has rung). –xeno^talk 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If a discussion of a !vote gets too long we should just move the discussion to a sub-section at the bottom of the page and replace it with a single link to that sub-section. Meta discussion can still happen on the talk page, but on topic discussion of an opinion can still happen on the same page. The poll list will be cleaned up and conversations will not appear to be closed as the collapse template tends to indicate. Chillum 16:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That is along the same lines as my thought. Pick an arbitrary number, say 3, and if more than 3 replies (or $x bytes/words/other) to a comment exist, move ALL of it below to the discussion area, with a pointer that says "further discussion here" or a similar link. That is better than the talk page, which should be for other uses. This allows one or two comments to piggyback a vote, which no one thinks is terrible, but extended discussions that break up the flow of that section are moved. This way you can read the votes in a fairly clean manner, and independently go see the rebuttals. THAT would give everyone who supports or opposes equal footing, while allowing anyone who takes exception to their vote plenty of space to do that, on the main page. This actually matches how we do many discussions anyway, with polling up top and discussion below. Alternatively, you could force ALL replies to the discussion area, which is making it more formal, but unquestionably more fair to the voters. I wouldn't oppose that as a compromise, as long as all good faith replies are on the front page, bottom section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

JhealdBot (BRFA) and BU RoBOT (BRFA) need the bot flag. Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Done; sorry for the delay. –xeno^talk 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. Sorry for spamming this, but it's for a good cause. I would like to encourage editors to comment on my idea lab request here. Input would be greatly appreciated.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi, I'm going to be travelling for the next couple of months. As I'll be using hotel wifi and the like, it would probably be best if the admin tools were removed from my account until I get home in case anything dodgy happens. I'll request that the tools be re-added when I get back in mid-November. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done; safe travels. –xeno^talk 10:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bureaucrats and Administrators,

It has recently been brought to my attention that I would have a looming deadline (expiring in less than a month) to request the reinstatement of my Bcrat flag.

Some of the older crats probably remember me. The newer ones probably have only seen my name in the "former Bureaucrats" subsection. In the larger community, however, the situation should be even more radical. I doubt that too many people who are active these days will actually remember me.

Therefore, my willingness to help notwithstanding, it is not as a natural a move to simply request the reinstatement, I feel. So I would like to get feedback from the current crats and any Admin who might wish to comment on whether or not I should ask for reinstatement or just let the deadline pass. Thank you all for your input and your time! Redux (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

With only 24 edits in the last six years it's understandable that your interest is no longer in being a Bureaucrat on Wikipedia. The only thing left to do for Bureaucrats these days are bot approvals and rare RfA closures. Some Bureacrats have expressed a fear that there may not be enough tasks to go round to avoid being de-crated for lack of activity. Our Bureaucrats being the wisest people we have, I think it's something you'll have to decide for yourself. In any case, it wouldn't be seen as proper for me as a mere admin to offer you any advice or suggestions :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just realized that my message to former bureaucrats did not point out that a former bureaucrat that had been completely inactive for a three year period would not be eligible to receive back the bureaucrat privileges regardless (without a fresh RFB). This policy change was communicated to you here. Terribly sorry for the mixed messaging. At the least, this should eliminate any perceived looming deadline... –xeno^talk 11:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I do see a three year gap in your edit history, so it's likely that the inactivity deadline already passed in 2012/2013.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Xeno pointed it out to me on my talk page. Quite honestly, I had not remembered that any given period of inactivity had lasted that long (might be going a bit gaga here...). Well, as I commented on my talk page in reply to Xeno, the rules are the rules. And I was not particularly concerned with getting the tools back, specifically given my past inactivity. I thought about jumping back on the bandwagon given the message regarding a special procedure - but which had a fast-approaching deadline. And even so I would not even put the request in without getting at least some feedback from the current crats and the Admins, which was the purpose of this thread. I don't think xeno's message was confusing at all, just a "detail" slipped my mind (not his), given the fact that it was quite some time ago. That being the case, good luck to the crats, and thank you all for taking the time to comment. Redux (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I do remember you (from the days I was known as Pharmboy). If you do come back editing, getting one or two extra bits would be fairly easy after 6-12 months back. It all depends on whether this is the right "hobby" for you or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed your cautious and thoughtful approach would be welcome back on the team, but it seems you'll need to take the long route, as Dennis mentions. Thanks for understanding. –xeno^talk 14:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem :). Thank you guys. Redux (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello!

After an extended absence (nearly two years and seven months, yikes), I would like to request for my administrator rights to be reinstated, please. If there are any questions or concerns, please let me know. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a perfectly cromulent request. –xeno^talk 11:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. T-minus 17 hours. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For grins and giggles, I dug around and found nothing that would warrant concern. We could use another experienced admin, assuming you decide to hang out regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the cromulence of this request. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Highly supported former admin coming off a long break seems more than fine. In their last month of editing before the break, there does not appear to be any indication they left under a cloud. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• And so enacted. Welcome back Explicit. Worm^TT(talk) 07:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that 'crats canperform name changes. If so, can one of you folk deal with this person, who was not only a block-evading sock of Ferociouslettuce (now blocked) but whose name is a deliberate outing. ("Deliberate" because FL has had the OUTING policy pointed out to them a number of times recently.) Can you please change the user's name to something else? Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a case for Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, I believe. Oversight includes the ability of hiding usernames.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I wasn't sure who could handle this, I contacted oversight as well. BMK (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And, in fact, Oversight has taken care of it. Thanks all. BMK (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

However, there are some more shenanigans involving the account name, so a forced change to something innocuous would be welcome. BMK (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's better for Stewards to handle this, please see the instructions at the top of page to contact them. –xeno^talk 01:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, will do, thanks. BMK (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

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

I humbly request reinstatement of my administrator rights. I ceased editing in April 2012, after which a series of life events led me in other directions for some time. My administrator rights were revoked in April 2013 after one year of inactivity. I technically meet the "letter of the law" for reinstatement due to a very brief period of activity in April 2014, but will understand if this is not deemed to meet the "spirit of the law" since I am only returning to full-time editing around now. To my recollection no one ever stated any concerns with my actions while I was an admin. Thanks. –Grondemar 23:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no lengthy inactivity and no apparent clouds, so this seems a standard request. –xeno^talk 01:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours, I see no issues, so I've restored the bit. Worm^TT(talk) 07:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! –Grondemar 12:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Aervanath (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Greetings, My bit was removed due to inactivity in April 2014. As I have recently gotten to a point where I can again devote time to the project, I would appreciate it if the userrights could be restored. I do not believe I was under any sort of cloud when I ceased editing, and I believe I am still within the time limit to do a straightforward restore. Thank you for your consideration.--Aervanath (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, there does not appear to be a cloud and inactivity is not in excess of requirements. Should be able to resysop after 24h waiting period. Worm^TT(talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. All looks in order. WJBscribe (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much.-Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note only a procedural question.Can an old unsuccessful Request to adminship be deleted ? If my understanding was right they were only Courtesy Blanked in all circumstances earlier even if they were vanishing until a recent case. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-'crat response.) The general rule is no, but I can imagine an exception might be made in really exceptional circumstances. Those would probably be a sort of circumstances that shouldn't be discussed at length on-wiki, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Untranscluded WP:NOTNOW RfAs are deleted frequently. Not sure on "general" RfAs though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• They can be deleted per an applicable speedy deletion criterion (e.g. untranscluded , obvious NOTNOW requests) or theoretically via an MfD discussion, but as a general rule, you're correct, they should not be deleted per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE (which applies to all Wikipedia discussion pages) and cannot be deleted per something like a user request. IAR always applies in exceptional circumstances, of course. Swarm ♠ 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think the 3 rule is working in the APerson RfA, as implimented by Worm. It is a bit odd to see all the regular top discussion moved to the talk page, but it does seem to be a bit less problematic that way, so I can't really speak out against it. I might make an exception if the 4th was the candidate themselves (not the case here), and might have put the "General Comments" up top, since that is how it is formatted on the front page, but all and all, this seems smoother. It might end up generating more discussion on some points because they aren't trying to keep it as short on the front page, but that isn't a bad thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but I thought we had recently agreed at WT:RfA that the 'General comments' section would now go at the bottom, below the voting discussion. I prefer that way, and wish we'd stick to that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Did we? Oh, I missed that! I'll change it back when I get a chance. Worm^TT(talk) 18:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Whew! I'm not crazy! – the discussion about this had already gone to the archives, but can be found here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer them at the bottom, but I just wanted them to be in the same place on the talk page, top or bottom, that they are on the main page. It just seems natural. The current RFA looks like it already needs clerking, for that matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw#Montanabw_here:_making_one_comment_-_and_pinging_Bureaucrats

thank you. — Ched :  ?  05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The closing bureaucrat will no doubt take a look at the discussion on the page and take it into account. Until then, I think it's best for us bureaucrats to let the discussion run its course. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 'crats; the adminbot MusikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) to restore old IP talk pages has been approved and needs +sysop temporarily until the task is completed. Thanks! — Earwig ^talk 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done please report back here once complete for removal. Thanks, –xeno^talk 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Just to keep you and The Earwig in the loop, BD2412 and I were discussing performing the same task for more IP talk pages that were deleted as stale. For instance, Tawkerbot deleted a few thousand under the same rationale [4]. If we need a new BFRA that's no problem, otherwise I can just move these to a user page resembling the one used for the approved task and go about it the same way. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Since it's the same sort of task, I think it's fine for you to handle it without a separate BRFA; just make sure the same checks (e.g. for previous deletions) are done. It would be good for the redlinked pages to have {{OW}} or similar added, though, so they're not just resurrected blank. — Earwig ^talk 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: I am very much in favour of undeletion of old IP talk pages. But Tawkerbot and BD2412 weren't the only ones who've mass-deleted old IP talk pages. User:MZMcBride also has deleted thousands of them, as can be seen from this. Consider restoring these pages too. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

W-wait a mi-minute. I have had a re-look. It seems that MZM has deleted IP talk pages on a far greater scale than thought. I surfed through the deletion log and counted over 400,000 deletions between 11 January and 4 March 2009. While 99% of these were IP talk pages, other pages too were deleted during the period, a list of which can be obtained from the page history of User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 4. The actual count of IP talk page deletions is much higher, considering that he had been doing these since December 2008. But fortunately, there is one thing that's common to all these deletions: the deletion summary used was: [[WP:OLDIP|Old IP talk page]]. I suggest that an adminbot be optimised to go through MZMcBride's deletion log and undelete all the pages that were deleted under that particular rationale. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's alright that we're discussing this here (since this is noticeboard is intended for 'crats), but I'd like to propose speeding up the bot a little. I spoke with Anomie and a few others on IRC about server performance, and I was told we shouldn't have much to worry about in that regard, especially since the bot was programmed to respect maxlag errors and waits increasingly longer if the server load is high. The real concern is if the bot makes a mistake, as in a lot of mistakes. At least for the current run, which is going through User:MusikBot/RestoreHistories/List1 through List4 (and a few more pages yet to be added), a mistake is very unlikely. @The Earwig: Thoughts? I was hoping for maybe a 2 or 3 second delay for the remainder of the Tawkerbot cleanup. That would make a huge difference. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: That's fine. I had suggested the delay because admin actions can be dangerous (compared to regular edits), but 2 or 3 seconds is not a big difference. — Earwig ^talk 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I'd imagine it could be well over 400,000. MZMcBride made over 800k deletions (scoreboard) and from what I understand this made up the bulk of them. Like Fram below I'd suggest this might need wider discussion to expand the scope of this task so significantly, however I'd disagree that it's pointless – the load on the server is the same regardless of whether revisions are deleted or not and there's no reason they should be kept for admin eyes only. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Um yeah, I imagine most of it was fro MZM to beef up their deletion count but there is a good chance that a small fraction of the pages will have content that should remain hidden from view and I can't see that any human can possibly be review 400,000 page for issues - especially if there is no significant reason why we need to undelete these anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the bot skipped pages that have multiple entries in the deletion log, which theoretically should account for any deletions beyond the talk page just being stale — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Server load was not really my concern, but anyway, you (the bot) add 400,000 log entries and 400,000 edits (replacing each page with a "blanked" template), so your comment isn't really correct. Fram (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a task that was approved for 500 or so pages can be simply extended to another 400,000 pages, that seems a bit extreme. Is there, apart from burocracy, a good reason to undelete 400,000 IP talk pages deleted at least 5 years ago? It may be the "correct" action under policy, but that doesn't mean that isn't in 99.9% of the cases an utterly pointless exercise. Fram (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

400,000+ is an awful lot, indeed. I'd probably be okay with not having to monitor the bot for that long, but if we really want to do this I can make it happen — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed – this would require clearer consensus, especially since the original BRFA was at the request of the admin who did the deletions in the first place. — Earwig ^talk 14:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: Since the originally-approved task was "I think these administrative actions of mine weren't proper, can you have a bot reverse it?", a fresh approval would be needed for "I think these rather old administrative actions by someone else aren't in line with current practice, can your bot reverse them?" are two very different tasks. So please seek consensus and file a new BRFA if you want to target the MZMcBride deletions. –xeno^talk 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  No problem. To those who are interested in seeing this get done, feel free to start up a discussion at WP:BOTREQ and I'll chime in. Otherwise I'm okay calling it quits after this last run — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• (Since the BN only has to deal with matters regarding admins and bots, I am choosing to continue the conversation here.) The best reason in support of the undeletion of these pages is that there is no reason why content that does not meet the deletion policy should remain visible only to admins. Wikipedia is supposed to be free and open. Keeping pages with no objectionable content in deleted state deviates from that principle. Of course, no one said anything about going with this without a fresh BRFA. This should perhaps be done with a separate adminbot account. The bot would obviously need to be fully automatic, so that the operator doesn't have to supervise such large number of actions. Maybe, having the bot run unsupervised would also make it feasible to set sufficient time gap between two bot actions, ensuring efficient utilisation of server resources. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As no one above has directly opposed the idea, I urge MusikAnimal to go ahead with it. I am interested in seeing this get done :) 103.6.159.68 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to add to the discussion that (so far as I understand), the stale warnings themselves will not be restored; the pages will be restored with nothing but a template indicating that prior activity can be found in the page history. Feel free to correct me if this is not what is intended with the current request. bd2412 T 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Xeno You can remove the admin bit from the bot for now. I'm not expecting to resume this task anytime soon, and if we do, I'll simply come back and ask that it be restored. Many thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Xeno, but  Done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, why are old IP talk pages being undeleted/restored? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Quoth the BRFA: "Way back in the day, before there was consensus against doing it, User:BD2412 deleted about 2500 stale IP talk pages. Now, in light of our WP:DELTALK guideline, we'd like to restore them.". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, I read that. :-) I was asking for an actual rationale to restore thousands of ancient talk pages that contain only templated messages. The linked guideline doesn't really seem to address that. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@MZMcBride, isn't process-for-the-sake-of-process great? ‑ iridescent 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For sure. I'm glad pages such as User talk:203.61.91.42 can now linger in database dumps in perpetuity. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

All of these pages are already lingering in the Wikipedia database for perpetuity; the difference is that now only admins can see their history. bd2412 T 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Database dumps only include live (i.e., non-deleted) pages, of course. Same with the index that Special:Search relies on. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Please could you explain why the bot restored this page after you ackowledged Xeno's comment above that, "Since the originally-approved task was "I think these administrative actions of mine weren't proper, can you have a bot reverse it?", a fresh approval would be needed for "I think these rather old administrative actions by someone else aren't in line with current practice, can your bot reverse them?" are two very different tasks. So please seek consensus and file a new BRFA if you want to target the MZMcBride deletions". I realise that your response said you would stop "after this last run" but nowhere did you say that the "last run" would include pages deleted by MZMcBride - on the contrary, the inference I drew at the time when I read your comment was that no pages deleted by MZMcBride would be restored without a new BRFA. Also, the undeletion summary currently references a BRFA that doesn't actually approve the undeletion. WJBscribe (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm I'm a little confused myself, so I will try to explain. I was going off of this list of deleted contributions by Tawkerbot that you can see was approved by BAG editor The Earwig in the discussion above, since it was essentially the same task as the BFRA. The fact the pages weren't actually deleted by Tawkerbot is something I, and presumably BD2412, weren't aware of. I'm guessing it's merely coincidence that the deleting admin of so many of those pages was MZMcBride. The thing I haven't figured out is which pages of Tawkerbot's contributions I went off of to restore, as I see nothing but red links. Either way if you check the pages that were restored (User:MusikBot/RestoreHistories/List1 through List4) you'll see Tawkerbot in the revision history, so that should show that I was in fact going off of the bot's deleted contribs and not MZMcBride's. I suppose the undeletion summaries should have linked to this discussion, I just left it at the BRFA as it was sort of "bundled" in with that task. That page should probably be amended, or I can reverse all the bot actions inadvertently taken on MZMcBride if we so wish (there's a lot, it turns out). Apologies for the confusion and any mistake on my part, and understand no attempt was made to go against consensus here — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah wait, of course, the pages that were restored no longer contain deleted revisions (except those that had multiple entries in the deletion log), so obviously you would only see red links of Tawkerbot's deleted contribs at [5] — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon above with the go-ahead for restoring the Tawkerbot pages. Xeno is right to point out the difference between "please undo some old admin actions of mine" vs. "please undo some other user's admin actions", but due to the relatively small number I figured we could get away with it without extra bureaucracy since the underlying merits of the task are the same. @MZMcBride: I am not sure about the helpfulness of database clutter as an argument; these pages are no bigger than the other 13 million pages in the user and user talk namespaces. If people are concerned about the size of database dumps, they should download the ones that only have current revisions (which will be {{OW}} for all of these) or the article-only dumps. If you want to download a dump that has everything in it, I'd argue these pages are no less useful than all of the random abandoned userpages we have. You could defend them as useful for analysis of user warning procedures over time, for example. @Iridescent: could you expand on what you said above? — Earwig ^talk 20:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Still not clear as to how these restorations slipped through:
@MusikAnimal: Do I understand correctly that when you said above that "Tawkerbot deleted a few thousand under the same rationale" you overlooked that Tawkerbot was never an adminbot (so hasn't deleted any pages) and that the link you provided was to deleted contribs by that account, rather than its deletion log? And @The Earwig, you agreed to these additional restorations without noticing the error? WJBscribe (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct, at least speaking for myself. BD2412 was aware they were deleted contribs per User talk:BD2412#Old IP talk pages, I simply misread and relayed the message incorrectly. It should be made clear that at the time this was perceived as a non-controversial task (again speaking for myself), I certainly didn't foresee this developing into a big ordeal. I have my regrets as I felt funny about it from the start. I just wanted to help clear the backlog at WP:BOTREQ and knowing I was able to do an adminbot task I stepped up to the plate. I will happily re-delete all the affected pages if that's what we want, but I don't see the issue here other than the simple miscommunication that resulted in otherwise harmless restoration of some talk pages. Surely none of us meant to go against consensus or cause a fuss. Believe me when I say that if this were perceived as anything controversial I wouldn't have taken up the task in the first place (which is why I eventually backed out), and if I did I would have been monitoring the task like a hawk. The bot proved itself to be reliable in only restoring talk pages with a single entry in the deletion log with rationale of the talk page being stale. Restoring those pages to a state that reflects our current guideline seemed harmless. I am truly sorry if this is not the case. I take responsibility for any wrongdoing on my part, just understand I had the code and people wanted me to run it, so I did. You can be reassured I won't take up any adminbot tasks moving forward — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: I was aware that Tawkerbot hadn't deleted them by itself. I don't think that makes a difference, as Tawker wasn't the one requesting it. I had understood this task as being uncontroversial and relatively trivial (per WP:DELTALK, MusikAnimal's reasoning, lack of opposition, etc), hence my approval despite it technically being different than the BRFA. — Earwig ^talk 00:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it would be pointless to undo anything that has been done up to this point. However, if there is unease about going forward, I won't press the issue. I do note, however, that a proportion of those red links will turn blue of their own accord every day (as new edits are made from previously deleted IP addresses, prompting new talk page comments), resulting in live pages with buried history for no reason other than chance. bd2412 T 02:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bureaucrats,
Account Control (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an article, not an editor.
(That said, they have only made good edits.)
Could you possibly look into this?
Thank you! Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• (not a crat) The user page is a copy-and-paste job and needs to be deleted. BethNaught (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  Unattributed text deleted. Note to User:Account Control, your username may be considered misleading and you should consider changing it. –xeno^talk 13:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's a sock account. I've blocked it indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks all, and especial thanks to Xeno, BethNaught and Ponyo . I sort of, kind of, picked up on this earlier on but didn't act on it. PS: I am seriously considering creating a user category "long-term editors who are still naïve" and adding myself as the first entry. Thanks again. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following administrators appear to be overdue for desysoping:

• Tkinias (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Tznkai (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Henrik (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Chris 73 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
• Trevor MacInnis (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

The customary seven day warning period appears to have passed as of last week (last notification on 11 September), see the inactive admin page. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...according to the inactive admins' page, the date for desysopping the September batch is the 27th. Does anyone know what caused it to be set for so late in the month? Acalamari 20:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it was set so late. The bot hadn't run on time and it was set manually, it seems. –xeno^talk 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Done, with thanks to all for their service. –xeno^talk 22:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)