Hello 'crats, since this seems to be a topic an open question currently with different users having different thoughts, I thought I would raise it here: is the consensus in Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC that non-admins who are elected to the arbitration must still go through RfA to receive the sysop bit still the consensus, or has it changed since 2015? I could not find any later RfC, but thought we should try to get an answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of a newer RfC. Granting CU and OS continue to be within the purview of ARBCOM, so the committee can use it to grant their own members such access. We also have a new edit-filter helpers group that can be used to grant read-only access to certain filter and spam logs (c.f. WP:EFH) that most arbitrators should qualify for. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a bureaucrat, but a couple of comments. There is precedent from other wikis to give non-admin arbitrators the sysop bit for the duration of their term (dewiki and frwiki come to mind). The ArbCom election would be a sufficient vetting process for giving access to deleted revisions, as has been clarified by WMF staff in the past (and codified in the global OS policy). However, given the consensus from the 2015 RfC, I think that a new RfC would be required to automatically grant arbitrators the sysop bit for their term. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the arbcom election is sufficient rfa like process (especially as the primary foundation holdout is access to deleted information and that oversight is given by arbcom), however there would need to be a coupled community consensus to define the authority, scope, and process. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. ArbCom elections are certainly enough from the WMF perspective: they give them the legal cover they need, and a non-admin arb would get both the CU and OS flags, which come with the ability to view deleted revisions. My reading of the previous RfC, however, is that while an arbcom election may be enough for the WMF not to oppose granting the sysop bit, the English Wikipedia community would still require an RfA for a 'crat to flip the switch. Either that, or a new RfC, which would take longer and require basically the same level of consensus: meaning from a practical perspective, a non-admin arb elected this cycle would need to go through an RfA if they wanted administrative privileges on the English Wikipedia beyond that which CU/OS grant.

It would be great if other 'crats could weigh in as well so the community has a rough idea what the rough bureaucratic consensus is on this either before the election or early in the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tony's take on the issue. As things currently stand, either an RFC needs to be run that would allow ArbCom to hand out the sysop bit to non-admin CU/OS editors, or a non-admin would need to have an RfA to be granted them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The other questions that would have to be asked: after their arb term, do they get to keep the admin hat, or do they lose it? Are they full admins and can they use the tools just like any other admin, or would they be restricted to using the tools for arb purposes only? --Rschen7754 03:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It would have to be temporary. Obama doesn't still get to sit in the Oval Office, and Blair doesn't retain a key to 10 Downing Street. The issue would be that, while it's generally harder to get elected at ArbCom than at RfA, they're very different in "wikipolitical" terms; adminship is effectively a lifetime appointment, while Arb is short-term. And Arb seats must be filled. If no one but really horrible people runs for ArbCom some year, then some horrible people will be elected, people who would never pass RfA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

But on the contrary, CU/OS are arguably more consequential rights and are granted permanently to arbitrators even after their term. --Rschen7754 19:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TonyBallioni: the admin policy does not have "join the arbitration committee" as a current option. Regarding your statement above, while a sitting arbitrator may become a CU/OS, they are not obligated to. The crat "policy" allows for granting adminship when it "reflects the wishes of the community", however in my opinion simply joining the arbitration committee does not equate to a community consensus for adminship. An RfC would be the way to change these policies. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I would expect a new RfC's result to be the same as the last. Probably a reasonable expectation is that an Arb might self-grant CU/OS if needed for an ArbCom duty then self-remove it again when the necessary evidence has been examined. By way of analogy, the police have the authority to do a search and seizure when they have a warrant or when a crime appears to be underway, but not otherwise [in the US].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

CU/OS rights are granted per an ArbCom resolution, not by request of an individual arb - even for their own access. Making a motion to add and remove the rights when necessary would thus take a lot of "paperwork" for both ArbCom and the stewards. The easier option would be for the non-admin arb to gain and keep CU/OS for their term. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We could also create an "arbitrator" userright that entails all "passive" permissions of adminship (e.g viewing deleted revisions) without the "active" ones (e.g blocking, protecting). If memory serves (@Opabinia regalis:?) the main need for admin tools for arbitrators is precisely the passive ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Both the CU and OS groups include all the rights necessary to view deleted content, so a group for the passive permissions would not be necessary. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So just grant CU and OS (as is already done for arbitrators) would suffice. Thanks for pointing that out. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion is here . CU/OS are "investigative" tools - the primary job of arbitrators is not to "perform" investigations - I always found it odd that the "judges" were also the investigators here. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Judges need to be able to see the presented evidence, which I'd say includes the ability to see CU results and OS-suppressed edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: most common use of CUOS by arbcom is in reviewing ban appeals. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I wouldn't say passive-only use, really; you need to be able to un- and re-block to usefully deal with ban appeals, you may need to delete (not just revdel) inappropriate or just unneeded pages, and occasionally someone needs to protect pages in arbspace. Yeah, "someone else" could always do any individual instance of any of those tasks, but it adds up if it always has to be "someone else". In the interest of full disclosure, I have elsewhere called the apparent consensus that elected non-admins shouldn't get the bit "cuckoo crackers". Which it is ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware, Nohat is the only example of a non-admin being appointed to ArbCom. Even back in 2004, when the community regarded adminship as much less of a big deal, it seems that an RfA was judged necessary - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nohat. It’s a long time ago, but I’m not seeing a change in consensus, so RfC to change the policy or RfA remain the way to go IMO. WJBscribe (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we got far enough to see that this is not a Bureaucrat issue. Discussion beyond that point belongs somewhere else. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I asked for my bit to be removed back in April to disengage from the project. I've decided to return to editing and would like to have the tools back. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Not A Bureaucrat}} Good to see you back, Laser brain! Bishonen | talk 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC).

{{Practically a bureaucrat}} Woot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Not even none of the above}} I was wondering how long it'd take! :p bloody good thing though. Welcome back! Serial Number54129^{...speculates} 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{No we like you as an editor!}} ... but we also like you as a bureaucrat!, Good to have you back: ) –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I don't see any problems with returning the bit after the standard 24-hour wait period. The reason for leaving was not controversial. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Is a Bureaucrat}} Great to see. Wizardman 22:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Is burnt out}} Sorry, but asking to get the bit back indicates you don't have the requisite degree of sanity needed to get the bit back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Definitely not a bureaucrat}} Good to have you back! J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

{{Pretending not to be a bureaucrat}} All looks good to me. Welcome back... WJBscribe (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all! --Laser brain (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Now that the Arbcom Elections are over, I'm still planning to be more active on Wikipedia and thought I might request my admin and bureaucrat bits back. I've been inactive for about 9 month since I asked for removal of my admin bit and a little more since I dropped the crat bit. Neither were under a cloud, but I'll leave that for the community to consider. For reference - Worm That Turned (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Cheers Worm^TT(talk) 17:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

SYSOP: Sysop resignation was here on 20170511 in Special:Diff/779858698. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be OK, standard 24 hour hold for discussion opportunity. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

CRAT: Resignation was on 20160704 at meta in meta:Special:PermaLink/15743368#Worm_That_Turned@en.wikipedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That should be 2016, not 2017 (not that it would make a difference). --Rschen7754 04:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back to active admin/crat service. WJBscribe (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :) Worm^TT(talk) 22:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back Worm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue, but  Done by TonyBallioni. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Please delete this page: [1]. It falls under speedy deletion criteria U1, U2, G6. The page was left as a redirect whenever I was renamed, there is currently no user by the name of Gamebuster19901 anymore. Administrators do not have permission to delete the page, and I do not have permission to edit it anymore. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 01:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Not a 'crat), I went ahead and deleted it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I didn't think administrators had permission to delete it. Thanks! Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 01:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

• Anetode (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)}

Going to have more free time coming up ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, there is a standard 24-hour hold on resysop requests for comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, missed that part. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Xaosflux (or any other crat). This appears to be over 2 days late on checking the box. Just pinging/commenting as an FYI TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Andrevan@ 03:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that there is currently a reference to the former bureaucratic mailing list here. I figure that I should leave any specific changes to you. -- Dolotta (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. Renames are not a function of being a bureaucrat anymore. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#January_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Dana boomer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Deltabeignet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Grandiose (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – See section below. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I was just looking at the WP:INACTIVE page and noticed that the second notifications have not been made for the three admins listed for the January 2018 group. I don't know if they are due yet or not. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, bot is probably down again - will send manually. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Send, will close in a couple of days if still inactive. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Dolotta: and others, there appears to have been another bot problem and a list of inactives were left off for January processing. I have added them and sent notifications for Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#February_2018. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being on top of things Xaosflux! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi bureaucrats. I want to make sure my interpretation of policy here is accurate. If an administrator puts themselves up for a "reconfirmation" RfA and fails, is that considered to be a cloud in itself? I would think no. In a hypothetical circumstance where an admin has no recent history of abuse or poor judgement and yet resigns after a failed reconfirmation, could they request the mop back at any time? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say not a cloud, but also a failed reconfirmation RfA would mean loss of admin rights. They should be only returned after a successful RfA Worm^TT(talk) 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a failed reconfirmation RfA, though? In the past, bureaucrats haven't closed them and have refused to recognize them because there is no policy that makes any mention of them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no mechanism under which a reRfA can be binding, any resignation that stems from it must be voluntary, thus so would be reinstatement (barring any other ongoing issues at the time of the reRfA). It stands to reason that someone willing to undergo a reRfA out of their own free will would abide by its outcome just as willingly, and thus would be fine with going through a new RfA to recover the bit, but I don't think current policy can make any of that anything other than voluntary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The responses to this so far have focused on the admin not resigning after failing reconfirmation or the admin resigning but later asking to be reinstated. But what if the admin resigns and declares himself to be resigning under a cloud? Beside the failed reconfirmation case, this could also come up in a case where an admin does something that he knows will lead to a desysopping but which hasn't been discovered yet (perhaps someone contacted him privately and he knows that the secret is about to be revealed, or perhaps his conscience is weighing on him). In such a case the admin may wish to resign under a cloud and avoid the embarrassment of everyone finding out what he did. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd think it would put us in a messy situation policy-wise, especially if it was a voluntary reconfirmation RfA for a sitting admin, that then did not voluntarily resign. @Worm That Turned: for example if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 were to close as 'no consensus' (i.e. not "successful" (how about "withdrawn"?)) are you prepared to revoke the admin bit without a voluntary statement by the "candidate"? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no remit to remove the bit in that situation - but I'd certainly be putting pressure on for that voluntary statement. Worm^TT(talk) 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think cloud is the right word. Because the whole process is voluntary, the editor in question could choose to forego the administrator role based on any level of support that the editor felt was insufficient, even if there is still an overall consensus in support of the editor retaining administrative privileges. Instead I believe the editor should be giving up administrative privileges with the express condition that they not be restored unless the editor submits a successful request for administrative privileges in future. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But would the bureaucrats honor it? Even if the admin later said that he changed his mind and now wanted to be reinstated without a successful RfA? --Guy Macon (talk)

I see no reason why the explicitly stated commitment should be ignored, as a decision to relinquish administrative privileges is not one undertaken lightly. In addition, upholding one's commitments is an essential part of maintaining the community's trust. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that if an admin failing a reconfirmation RfA is controversial circumstances that precludes restoration of the position. That would include: (i) a serving admin submits themselves for reconfirmation, doesn’t get community support and resigns as a result; and (ii) an admin who resigned under uncontroversial circumstances who submits an RfA instead of just asking for restoration of their rights and the RfA is unsuccessful. In my view, neither of these users who be eligible to have their adminship restored without a new - successful - RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

PS. I seem to remember (I think the candidate was Majorly) that an admin who resigned, ran a new RfA, then withdrew when it was obviously failing once divided bureaucrat opinion on this topic. Someone may be able to fish out the relevant threads from the archives... WJBscribe (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Like magic :). I see Majorly pressed me on the point - see question 7 of my RfB. WJBscribe (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree in general with WJBscribe, that an actual unsuccessful RfA or substantially RfA like process would disqualify automatic resysoping (under the specifically prevented by prior community consensus clause). If there were a situation where an admin had previously pledged to recall conditions and then failed a recall measure but did not volunteer to resign - I suspect ArbCom would get involved in evaluating any remedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don’t see a role for bureaucrats if an admin fails a recall measure but refuses to resign. WJBscribe (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe and xaosflux. A voluntary reRFA that fails would disqualify an editor from resysopping (in other words, it would be considered a "cloud"). I also agree that 'crats have no authority (per policy) to remove an admin bit if someone fails a reRFA and refuses to resign. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's something to think about. Administrator A fails reRFA and Bureaucrat B removes the bit when Administrator A refuses to resign. What happens next? It's not like Bureaucrat B acted against community consensus based on the reRFA. I would imagine two things would happen: (a) a precedent would be set and (b) Bureaucrat B would keep his bit after at least a requests for arbitration but perhaps not a full case. Of course, you would need to find a Bureaucrat B who is foolhardy enough to unleash a shitstorm like that upon himself. :p Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, someone who wants this to be a thing needs to run a well-publicized RfC to modify current policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-bureaucrat comment Precedent can only be set where policy is ambiguous. This case is very unambiguous - bureaucrats do not have the authority to desysop in cases other than voluntary resignation, ArbCom decision, inactivity, or in the case of a deceased Wikipedian (IAR probably permits emergency desysopping as well). The consensus from the two relevant RfCs (one and two) is that bureaucrats should only use their desysop powers in the cases explicitly defined by the community. Rather than setting precedent, I think that a bureaucrat desysopping an admin following a reRFA would be a highly contentious action that would probably be reverted. I think that for a reRFA result to be enforced, there would need to be explicit community consensus granting that authority to bureaucrats. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AJ is almost certainly correct, though I think the idea of having such a ridiculously high bar at RfB is that we get bureaucrats who aren't daft enough to do that kind of thing. Having said that, I would hope an admin decent enough to submit themselves for reconfirmation would be decent enough to give up he bit if it was clear they no longer had the confidence of the community. Where an admin relinquishes their bit before running a reconfirmation RfA, I would imagine the 'crats would be on firm policy ground by refusing to restore the bit if the RfA was unsuccessful. I was daft enough to do this a few years ago and wouldn't have expected the bit back if the RfA had been unsuccessful. It's a shame we don't have a better process for admins to get feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Committee on this, but I would personally be extremely concerned with a bureaucrat attempting to make policy (e.g. a "precedent") on reconfirmation RfAs through the use of their tools. I doubt any of you are seriously considering that beyond an intellectual exercise, but I'd certainly prefer that you not go there. Someone would be without the mop at the end of such a situation, and it's at best a toss-up whether it would be the bureaucrat or the desysopped admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine a situation where, after a failed recon RfA, there would not be a CratChat before this hypothetical desysopping, so any such action would have the consensus of the 'Crats. If brought to ArbCom, it would be the mother of all ArbCom cases - the Committee against the 'Crats, and I couldn't see the Committee survive if they tried to sanction a 'Crat for acting under both community and 'Crat consensus. SilkTork (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

To my mind, an admin refusing to honour a recall commitment by resigning after a failed re-RFA is more naturally a matter for ArbCom than us bureaucrats. If ArbCom wouldn't pull the bits in those circumstances, then it sits uneasily for us to "fill the gap" through some sort of IAR use of our desysop powers. Maxim may be right that a bureaucrat who did so might hang on to his bureaucrat rights by the skin of his teeth, but I don't think it would do much for community confidence in us as a whole... WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Kinda the whole point of the ‘crats is that they don’t act without a mandate or a rule backing them up, and they have neither in this situation. Seems moot in this case anyway as the rfa is clearly going to pass. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Separately, I'm vaguely wondering whether it's permissible for any editor to close such a reconfirmation RfA as completely not based in policy, redirecting the "candidate" to admin review. Hmm. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia: Administrator Review was closed due to lack of interest some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if there's renewed interest, it can be revived. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• • In my view, no. There's no policy against them, they just may not be binding if the admin chooses not to resign at the end. WJBscribe (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'm surprised bureaucrats think a failed reconfirmation RfA is a "cloud" for the purposes of returning the mop. This begs the question: what is failure? Is it anything below consensus that would give the mop in the first place? If so, do bureaucrats get in the business of "de facto" closing reconfirmations in the discretionary zone because they have to make a determination of consensus or not? Is it consensus against (e.g. overwhelming opposition)? Is it whatever the close is done as, using whatever unknown metric the closer (possibly the admin being reconfirmed themselves!) decided upon? This is tricky business to give weight to a process not defined in any policy or guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As the whole process is voluntary, the editor in question is the sole determinant of what level of support he/she deems sufficient to continue in the role of administrator. If the editor wants the relinquishment of the role to have any meaning, the editor should specify the express condition that the privileges cannot be restored until the editor successfully requests the privileges again. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many scenarios that could be in play, and event sequencing would matter. To get get more clarification you would need to present a detailed timeline. One reading I'm getting is an example of AdminA resigning normally, this being completed, AdminA not becoming lengthily inactive, later not asking to be summarily resysoped, then starting an RfA-2, then not passing RfA-2, then asking to be summarily resysoped anyway. In this case the newly emerged community consensus to not promote is what I would honor. Another crat may decide to proceed with the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Xaosflux: I'm thinking more about reconfirmation RfAs while they hold the mop. To throw out an "extreme" example, say an admin runs for reconfirmation. They get 90 supports and 10 opposes, something that would easily pass a normal RfA. They resign, saying they found the opposes convincing and doubted their own ability as an admin. They later ask for the mop back. This is a "failed" reconfirmation RfA, as determined by the candidate themselves, but would bureaucrats refuse to return the mop to someone with 90% support at a reconfirmation? Now consider the same scenario with exactly 74.5% support, at the upper end of the discretionary range. Would you return the mop? Does it depend on your reading of the discussion? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I think it would depend on reading as RfA's aren't "votes" anyway. Also keep in mind "my" inaction (in not resysoping) is always allowed - enforcing a non-resysoping would require basically every crat not acting. If reconfirmation RfA's are going to be a thing, a community policy for how to use the results should be further defined. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I want to throw a wrench into this neat thinking and offer the following: a failed reconfirmation RFA may be a cloud depending on what it says. If the community brings up a policy dispute or sound reasoning based on the admin's actions or behavior to fail the reconfirmation RFA, that is a cloud if the admin then resigns under the weight of those issues raised. If we have opposing comments along the lines of, "I oppose all self-noms" or "reconfirmation RFAs are self-indulgent and disruptive," I would urge any admin not to resign on that basis. It might technically still be a cloud, but bureaucrats weigh arguments and reconfirmation-runners should do the same. However, I can imagine a hypothetical scenario where an admin resigned after a reconfirmation RFA but it was not a cloud, because no policy-based arguments were raised against that admin. It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis" so long as the crat performing the desysopping had a policy-based discussion and closing that it was not a cloud in such a case. Of course, we can solve this problem by a) not resigning and b) not having reconfirmation RFAs to begin with. Andrevan@ 08:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  But we wouldn't close such a hypothetical re-RfA as unsuccessful, would we? If the admin runs a re-RfA here, it's subject to bureaucrat discretion to determine the outcome. If the only ground of opposition is "I object to re-RfAs" there is clearly a consensus for the user to remain an admin, so it would closed as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed, but a reconfirmation before resignation wouldn't be closed by bureaucrats, right? Andrevan@ 08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Correct. Technically, a reconfirmation is not an RfA since they already have adminship. It would need to be closed by someone else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  We need someone who is sort of but not really a crat? Sounds like a job for User:Aardvark Floquenbeam! 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ach, das Floquenvark! :o >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to Xaosflux, above at 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC): If there were a situation where an admin had previously pledged to recall conditions and then failed a recall measure but did not volunteer to resign - I suspect ArbCom would get involved in evaluating any remedy.
According to WJBscribe, above at 12:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC): an admin refusing to honour a recall commitment by resigning after a failed re-RFA is more naturally a matter for ArbCom than us bureaucrats.
I don't know if there is a recent precedent, but I am sure there have been successful recall efforts where the admin declined to resign and ArbCom did nothing (Elonka comes to mind), so we are already well past the point where this issue ceased to be theoretical. Harrias' reRfA is not going to bring it to a head as the result will clearly be successful, but this topic is not going away and relying on ArbCom is an arbitrary given its changing composition and unsatisfactory for a community accountability mechanism given ArbCom already have desysopping authority. I think seeking to construct a principled mechanism with authority for bureaucrats to act without an impending crisis is much more desirable than trying to build one on-the-fly in the face of a crisis, a community spit in its views, and an admin fighting to preserve her or his mop. EdChem (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: for reference, can you provide example links to both the failed reconfirmation, and the declined case request? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I found the case decline, Special:PermaLink/234867942#Elonka. That was almost 10 years ago and the new committee may be more open to review, however I agree that a prior community policy update is much preferred. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't say how other arbs would respond, but I would decline any case that stems solely from an admin not following through on recall or a reconfirmation RfA. Both things have no basis in policy, and the Arbitration Committee cannot form policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Even that old example had a decline note in that how the case is requested is important, a case would need to be opened under a policy based complaint such as WP:ADMINACCT, the research used by objectors may be available as evidence if they were not baseless. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rob₁₃, I'm concerned by your comment that "I would decline any case that stems solely from an admin not following through on recall or a reconfirmation RfA." The declines in the Elonka case make much of a lack of a specific example of tool misuse, but ArbCom's since that time have recognised that there may be a case or even a desysopping in the absence of specific tool misuse where an admin has lost the trust of the Committee or engaged in conduct unbecoming of / inconsistent with the role of administrator. Can you imagine a case request where an administrator had failed a recall attempt or reRfA but had not engaged in alleged tool misuse, alleged conduct unbecoming, or potentially lost the trust of the arbitrators? Xaosflux mentions that framing of case requests is important, which I recognise is an issue, though I see as disappointing in that I would hope arbitrators could recognise a potential case in such circumstances no matter how the sides attempt to frame it. I think a recall attempt that has satisfied the admin's own criteria or a reRfA that has failed are evidence of a loss of trust from the community, so simply declining a case on the grounds that those actions are unenforceable is tantamount to declaring the support of the community is irrelevant to any editor continuing as an administrator. It also leaves the bureaucrats in the unenviable position of doing nothing about someone who has lost the trust of the community knowing that ArbCom may similarly doing nothing, or respecting the will of the community knowing that ArbCom may decide to sanction any bureaucrat that acts. To me, your comments illustrate once again why enWP needs a desysop procedure that does not involve ArbCom at all, and why the admin community collectively are likely to continue to impose oppose _{Correction made after message on my talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)} such an accountability mechanism. Sad _{Note: By this, I meant it makes me sad. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)}  :( EdChem (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree fully that the community needs a desysopping policy. The problem is that, in the absence of that, the Arbitration Committee must be careful not to create that policy by fiat. It would very much depend on why the reconfirmation RfA failed. If it failed due to policy violations or a history of poor actions, then we could look at that. The reconfirmation itself would bear no more weight in my mind than a case request supported by several community members, though. We cannot give weight to a process that has no basis in policy without giving that process the weight of a de facto policy. I'm very much concerned with ensuring ArbCom does not act as an "end around" to broader community consensus on the desysopping policy, even if I think that consensus is horrible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rob₁₃, I do recognise that you have been an advocate for a community-initiated process, thank you, and I agree with you that policy by ArbCom fiat is both problematic and outside its authority. I do have doubts about the notion that there is a present consensus reflecting the community as this is an area where admins and non-admins are in significant disagreement. What we have is a stalemate where the admin community is much less supportive of a policy change and that is sufficient to prevent a community-wide consensus forming despite support well beyond what is needed from the non-admin section of the community. As for my basic concern, it sounds like you agree that a successful recall or failed reRfA could be the basis for a case so long as the reasons were grounded in areas ArbCom would consider, such as tool misuse, loss of trust, conduct unbecoming, etc, and that a recall or reRfA without any of those is theoretical possible but improbable. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically correct, yes. The recall/reconfirmation RfA basically wouldn't factor for me one way or the other. If the recall/reconfirmation RfA was preceded by events that would have prompted me to accept a case in the absence of the recall/reconfirmation RfA, I would still do so after one. The failed recall/reconfirmation RfA wouldn't make me more likely to accept a case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): Recall proposal and related RfC, Xaosflux. I'm not denying that this example is from a long time ago by WP terms, nor do I suggest anything be done about that specific issue now. I am saying that the problem is not new, however, that an ArbCom demonstrated a willingness to choose not to act, and that the possibility of it being dumped to the bureaucrats' doorstep remains possible. That being the case, a crisis necessitating the adoption of a solution may be the only way to force a pathway forwards, but a planned path would be greatly preferable. EdChem (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue can be reopened with a policy RfC (Wikipedia talk:Administrators) at anytime. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it’s been a few years since the last time we tried to have a real community-based desysop or reconfirmation procedure, maybe there’s someone feeling masochistic who wants to try it again, but it has been repeatedly rejected in the past. WP:PEREN#Adminship appears to have a listing of the most recent relevant discussions on this topic. P.S. I am out of the “giant policy RFC” business, but I did draft one for community de-adminship a few years ago in my sandbox and would be happy to restore it and give it to anyone who wanted to use it for reference, as a jumping-off point, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, Beeeblebrox, I doubt anything has changed in the admin community collectively includes enough members who will oppose any such move to make them accountable either to protect themselves or with arguments that they support "in principle" but see the specific proposal as two dangerous / opening to gaming / etc.  :( EdChem (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of strict accuracy, plenty of non-admins shared the same concerns the last time such a proposal came up and support among admins was fairly split the time before that. Besides, "too open to gaming" has been a concern for every proposal so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion has brought up many points that may need additional community input. Please review this list and feel free to add list points here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Notes_regarding_December_2017_reconfirmation_discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Things do change here from time to time, but I think there's a good reason why we have never managed to create a community desysopping policy. Wikipedia admins are volunteers who do a very thankless and demanding job. The community has been happy with ArbCom as a mechanism to stop admins from going rogue. Well-intentioned WP:IAR is encouraged, but a world with mob desysop would be a pretty tricky one to operate in. I have been taken to task many times for doing what I thought made sense, even as a long-time bureaucrat. Sometimes people have legitimate points, other times it's just griefing. I guess I don't see the problem we are trying to solve here. Andrevan@ 17:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Community-initiated desysop processes don't lead to "mob desysop", they just lead to admins being accountable to the community that elected them. With proper safeguards in place, community-initiated processes work very well on Commons, Wikidata, Meta-Wiki, and the German Wikipedia. Anyone holding truly sysop+ level global rights on Wikimedia (editinterface, Pathoschild's global deleter group, stewards) need to go through yearly confirmations, and these processes have never resulted in someone being removed for reasons other than poor performance. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In hindsight, this comment is a bit more soapboxey and unrelated to this discussion than I had hoped. I think that community-initiated desysop processes can and do work, and that the right one might even be supported by the enwiki community. But that's a discussion for another location. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• According to Andrevan, above: "The community has been happy with ArbCom as a mechanism to stop admins from going rogue."

I think this is a doubtful reading of community views. The link Jo-Jo provided earlier had non-admins !voting in favour of a community-initiated procedure at a rate near 75%. I think the non-admin community are generally very much in favour of a community-initiated (ie. non-ArbCom) desysop procedure. EdChem (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• So to be clear, based on comments from a couple of crats above, is it correct that since this isn't a "real" RFA, the crats in general would prefer a non-crat close this one? Or is there a crat willing to? If crats decide they don't want to, don't think I'm trying to call dibs; I was going to close it, but decided I don't want to do so without a few more crats confirming this, since I'm about to be computer-less for +/- 24 hours and don't want to confuse things and then leave. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  Someone else did it already, did not need crat closure. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever way this issue so-called confirmation RFA is looked at, this close is bollocks. '"The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship."' It wasn't an RFA and should not be closed as one.Leaky Caldron 22:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s just the standard boilerplate in the closing template. I don’t think it’s worth continuing to make a big deal about it, I closed it without comment and did not add it to the archive of succesful RFAs, but if the tag is really bothering you that much go ahead and change it, it’s not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How about YOU doing it since you have got it fundamentally wrong? It was not a "boilerplate" RFA so why have you closed it without recognising the issues which have been raised concerning the validity of this so called RFA. You have created a precedent. Leaky Caldron 22:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t see it that way and, again, don’t particularly care one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2#Removal from Category:Successful requests for adminship. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2

Late to the party (happy UTC new year!). Some thoughts...
My feeling is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 should not be considered an RfA proper: it was an informal discussion that took the form of an RfA, was hosted in a subpage of WP:RFA, was listed as an RfA, and the community apparently tolerated this - but if this is to become a regular occurrence, an RFC to determine if this is a permissable use of the space should be undertaken (especially given the substantial ambivalence shown in the neutral section, general comments, and talk page discussion).
"Under a cloud" is a rather subjective term, and I think it should be removed from Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship and replaced with either the language used on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats process page or better, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels (I think I've made this argument before).
I agree that bureaucrats do not have a mandate to involuntarily desysop an administrator who stood for reconfirmation but held onto their tools despite the outcome; first, because it's not one of the permitted situations - but also because there is no established consensus on what level of support (or opposition) would constitute success/failure. (Are we being more lenient, because they might have cultivated adversaries merely from taking good and proper administrative actions, or more strict because there is an existing body of administrative work available for review that shifts the burden of proof?)
I agree that the resignation of an administrator either a) immediately prior to an RfA that a bureaucrat closes as unsuccessful (I would consider this a bona fide RfA) or b) resigned following a an "informal re-confirmation discussion held in a subpage of WP:RFA" (such as Harrias 2) should be considered "controversial circumstances" and the administrator would not be eligible for simple restoration of privileges.
On a community de-sysop process apart from arbitration, I modified one of EVula's proposals some time ago, but was convinced by Risker (at User talk:Xeno/Archive 31#Additional bureaucrat tasks) not to bring it forward for consideration. It can be viewed at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul if anyone is interested in either developing it further or presenting it to the community as it. –xeno^talk 01:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3 was closed as successful by Andrevan, a bureaucrat, and pads the statistics for successful RfAs in Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2011. Is there any substantial difference between that RfA and the recently closed one? wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, the difference is that HJ Mitchell was not an administrator at the time of that RfA. –xeno^talk 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, if you resign the bit first and then run RFA, that solves the "loophole." Beeblebrox solving the loophole by closing it -- well, he's just this guy, you know? Now, unless anyone has any last words, let's close THIS discussion, shall we? Happy New Year, Wikipedia hasn't fallen to the trolls yet, and it won't.

Andrevan@ 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the header template on the Harrias reconfirmation discussion (it is not an actual RfA since he's already an admin) to refelect that it is not an RfA. I would prefer the discussion itself be moved out of the RfA area in order to avoid future confusion on that point. I have not moved it, however, as that might cause all kinds of issues. Thoughts? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with moving the request, certainly not after it has concluded. There's been some suggestion that this request should have been closed/moved early, potential by us as bureaucrats. To address that in passing, I didn't do it because I see no consensus against people running reconfirmation RfAs in the manner that Harrias did. As a purely factual matter they have happened in the past - see the list at Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations. I agree that there is no consensus in favour of them either, and so their status (and consequences) are dubious and a matter for speculation. That may not be satisfactory, but I am no more willing to create a policy that they cannot occur through early closing/moving out of the RfA namespace etc than I would be to create policy that are valid by closing such a request as unsuccessful and removing +sysop to give effect to the discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I just restored the 21:40, 1 January 2018‎ version. We need to decide this by discussion and consensus, not reverting and edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No one, apart from you, has reverted! There was already agreement from the closer to amend this "It’s just the standard boilerplate in the closing template. I don’t think it’s worth continuing to make a big deal about it, I closed it without comment and did not add it to the archive of succesful RFAs, but if the tag is really bothering you that much go ahead and change it, it’s not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) " Why are so so insistent about this? Leaky Caldron 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good news, you're on the path to Wiki-immortality with this one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: So, despite your comment about not reverting, you have reverted my change? How about you live by your own declarations? This wasn't an actual RfA since he was already an admin. You can request to be given what you already have, sure, but everyone will think you're nuts and question your sanity. It was merely a non-binding discussion (non-binding because there is no policy to back it up). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at the previous discussions listed at Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations, the standard template has mostly been used in the past... WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - RfC

Very late to this party and TLDR but my view would be that if a reconfirmation RfA like Harrias's ended badly or as no-consensus, in the absence of a clearly-worded resignation, we'd need an RfC to determine policy.

This would inevitably be messy, as we'd be rightly accused of making policy after the fact.

I suggest we run an RfC now, when we don't need it, so we have policy if we do.

I'm no good at writing such things but it would be great if someone would set one up.

I really hope this happens and I'm not back trawling through archives in a year or so, looking for this post and saying 'told you so'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dweller, as I've mentioned on WT:ADMINS, the simplest solution here is to update WP:ADMIN to clarify that an RfA is for non-administrators to become admins. This is already the community consensus as the community has not allowed for them to be used in any other purposes, and for the last two 'crats have specifically declined to close them. There would be an RfC needed to change the policy from this point, but a wording change to clarify the existing policy would not require one. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion for the status quo, but my point remains that we should sort this out properly for the future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If people want the status to change to allow it, sure. I don't want the status to change. It shouldn't be incumbent upon those who support the status quo to start an RfC to document what everyone agrees is the status quo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• New proposal: Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is all so ridiculous. An admin's RfA should be shut down as NOT NOW regardless of whether they resign their tools, unless they have resigned "under a cloud" (whatever that means) and we have confirmation from the bureaucrats that they regard it as a legitimate, binding RfA. If an admin can drop off their tools, and then later get them back, just for the asking, then they are not a legitimate candidate. The recent RfA should have been shut down, so as not to waste the time of editors who might have mistakenly taken it for a serious RfA. Mitchell's RfA from years ago should have been shut down on this basis too. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What the heck is this? Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations. Where is the policy supporting that?? First time I've seen that, though in the back of my mind I recall talk of voluntary reconfirmations? How the heck is that supposed to work if only ArbCom can resign an admin "under a cloud"? wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: It's a list. We don't need a policy to create a list. If you want to find out why it was created, you're welcome to ask Tim Smith, as he created it. Also, please calm down. There's no reason to get all worked up about this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry. That should just be marked as {{Historical}} then. Just my opinion. wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't mark it as historical without first getting consensus for a policy (not just an opinion) that we no longer allow them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The page looks to me to be a purely factual list. If desirable, it can be edited to make clear that there is no applicable policy or community consensus for these reconfirmation discussions, but nevertheless it is a fact that they have occurred. Marking {{Historical}} makes no sense when a recent discussion has been added to the list. For completeness, it might be worth adding to the page (and renaming it if necessary) occasions where administrators resigned for the purpose of then submitting themselves for a reconfirmation RfA instead of just re-requesting the access rights. WJBscribe (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – With thanks to Salvidrim! for their service. Discussion of other permissions are outside scope. –xeno^talk 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It goes without saying that this is not a simple resignation but a desysop for cause (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision) but I'd still like for the admin bit to be removed right away instead of waiting for the case to "formally" close. I've made my peace and wish to move on without delay. If you wanna keep the thread open to await the formal ArbCom request be my guest, but please rip the bit off now. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I'd like to retain pending changes reviewer, new pages reviewer, autopatrolled, template editor, page mover, extended confirmed user (which might be automatic?), but if you think that automatically keeping one or more of these post-desysop is liable to be controversial, leave them off, I know the way to PERM. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(Obviously involved) but mentioning that retaining the NPR flag when an AfC topic ban has passed would likely be controversial. I would obviously recuse from any PERM request, but AfC removal and the reasons behind it is something that I personally take into account when reviewing NPR requests, and I believe other admins do as well there. Any ‘crat is if course free to disagree and Salv hasn’t been banned from reviewing new pages, but I do think the AfC TBAN is worth noting on that one. No comments on the others. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Non-bureaucrat comment It's one thing to resign, but to resign immediately after the proposed decision on desysop just reached majority ([2]), simply appears very dubious. Obviously this is going to be under the cloud, while unfortunately there is precedent ([3]) for regular user rights to be kept, explicitly asking for them here is rather distasteful in my opinion. Ultimately this is up to the discretion of the bureaucrat that processes the request. Alex Shih (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Let it go for PERM if preferred. NPR is about using the Curation Toolbar and has nothing to do with AfC but I'm in no position to argue right now. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In the light of all that's happened, I don't believe NPR or autopatrolled are now compatible with Salv's account. Not that I believe for a momemnt that he would abuse them, but the formality IMO is a procedural necessity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the sensible thing to do would be to remove the bit and give the uncontentious rights, which, I think, are all the ones Salvidrim listed except NPR, which can be properly and thoroughly discussed at the appropriate venue, i.e. not here. I'll make the change now. Whether it is or is not "distasteful" or honourable, or somewhere in between to resign the rights before having them stripped is POV and should play no part in this discussion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dweller I think autopatrolled would be controversial too - not having someone check his articles. There was still some support for a total prohibition of articles into mainspace, and people would want his articles atleast be checked (even though I don't think he's going to do anything bad in the future) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW autopatrolled doesn't change much for me (just which queue my creations fall into hehe) and I don't create any significant volume of articles so it's unlikely to be any burden on reviewers either. So it's fine being left off if there is any opposition. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm slightly uncomfortable here. If consensus emerged not to have given this permission before, I wouldn't have granted it, but I already granted the permissions before this was raised. It's not definitely obvious that I shouldn't have granted it at the time and in the current case ArbCom do not seem minded to approve restrictions in this area. I therefore think if I stripped it off I'd be going outside of policy and what seems right. I have no doubt at all that ArbCom members will be watching this discussion and if they're unhappy they have the power to make things as they think necessary. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Alternatively, Salvidrim, if you request removal of the right, of course I'll do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal view (ie not on Arbcom's behalf): we voted on removing admin tools and not any other user-right. Unless Salvidrim! volunteers to drop any other tool, there's no scope for their summary removal on the basis of the Arbcom case, or for not granting them if that would otherwise have routinely occurred. That will depend on the bureaucrats discretion, I suppose the point I'm making is the Arbcom case is specific in its remedies and shouldn't of itself be determinative for anything other than admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remove it for now, since it's clearly not uncontroversial. I can always go to PERM at some future time. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dweller, just my personal view also, I absolutely respect your neutrality, and will fully support the decision now that it's done, because in the end it is based on the discretion of individual bureaucrats. My only concern was in my limited time here, the two committee desysop that went through the full case (Special:UserRights/Magioladitis and Special:UserRights/Arthur_Rubin), every user right was stripped. I am just afraid that we are now encouraging future parties of desysop to quickly resign before the conclusion of the case to retain their user rights without needing to go through the process of applying again. Alex Shih (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. We have some poorly worded policy in the Arbcom page about desysop. It talks about removing "advanced permissions", on the same page that defines "advanced permissions" as CU and OS, not the admin bit. I don't think stripping back to zero is required by policy but I could be wrong. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are for emergency desysop, for example a compromised account. I'd guess stripping back to zero would make sense in that circumstance. In Salvidrims circumstance, personal view is it seems fair to take away what he wants to remove, and leave the rest. Arbcom found disruption in specific areas, and conduct unbecoming an administrator. We didn't find he couldn't be autopatrolled or a pagemover; if we'd wanted to have those removed also we would need to have voted on them. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with Euryalus, and as all 'crats are admins they can grant rights on their discretion. My rough thinking was that as a desysop removes the admin bit, any additional user rights the user requests are the same as requests for any other user: they are not automatic, but in most cases they should be granted. There is a question of whether it is prudent to request it in this way, but it isn't technically wrong. I raised the NPR issue because if someone had been recently removed from AfC and had applied at PERM for NPR, they likely would be denied, so I thought it would be better for those to be considered at PERM given how closely AfC and NPR are tied (NPR is essentially the ability to Google index pages as well as remove pages from review from others, which corresponds with the concerns in the case to the point where BN wouldn't have been the best place to discuss it. Like I said, I'm obviously not going to be the one to review any future PERM request here, but thought it was a relevant matter to raise. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ben, thanks for your five years of admin service. Martinp (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to thank him for his past service. I’m just wondering about the abusefilter he granted himself as a part of sysop (09:42, 8 November 2014 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) changed group membership for Salvidrim! from administrator to administrator and edit filter manager (i don't plan on editing EFs, just see histories)), shouldn’t this also removed as part of desysop? — regards, Revi 12:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's available to non-admins. But if there's disagreement on Salvidrim! holding it, the most transparent approach would probably be for that to be raised at EFN. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I left him a talk page note to confirm (it was not on the 'retain' list in the initial request above. He has never modified a filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If he hasn't abused it, then leave it. That's my thought.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2018) 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical precedent with Kevin Gorman and Rich Farmbrough is that abusefilter is kept for desysopped admins if they granted it themselves unless arbcom specifically says otherwise such as with the Kww case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Per his talk page, moved this from EFM to EFH. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The procedures for arbitration clerks notes at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting bans and editing restrictions under "Desysop" that "If the desysopped editor has self-granted edit filter manager rights, post a note to the edit filter noticeboard for review." but this provision only dates from January 2016 and so I think post-dates the Rich Farmbrough and Kevin Gorman cases, it certainly post-dates Kww (as that case was the impetus for the creation of the noticeboard) although it wouldn't have been relevant then. For background see Special:Permalink/700696525#Desysops_of_edit_filter_managers and Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/Archive 7#Removing EFM rights for those desysoped under a cloud where there was not a formal closure but 10:4 opposition to automatically removing EFM from those desysopped under a cloud. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the comments in the preceding section (but posted separately as this has nothing to do with Salvidrim!), when Arbcom desysopps an editor the clerks will post a note to the edit filter noticeboard if that edit has self-granted edit filter manager rights. It would seem sensible therefore to request that the 'crats do the same (i.e. leave a note) if desysopping an admin who has self-granted EFM rights. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note, that the current practice is that determining if there is a cloud is generally a function of reviewing a re-sysop request, not a resignation. That being said, referral to EFN seems OK should it not also be requested to be removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In the past few months, I consistently got signals that some users do not trust me as administrator. It was particularly prominent yesterday, when an ANI topic was speedy closed with a consensus that it is ok to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about, and when later an admin wrote in a casual conversation (not with me) that I must be "shown the door". In this situation, given the absence of instruments which provide proper feedback to administrators, I do not feel I have sufficient community support to remain administrator. I am not yet sure what I will do - this is not a resignation under a cloud, so I can return and get the flag back, or I can go for a new RfA, but this is definitely not going to happen tomorrow. For the time being, I will be active in various areas of Wikimedia projects where nobody can say I am incompetent. Please, remove the flag. I have a global rollback, but I would like to keep pending changes reviewer and new page patroller. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that if every administrator who was occasionally told they didn't know what they are talking about immediately resigned, then we soon wouldn't have any left-! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. You may of course always run for RfA again (barring an ArbCom restriction in the future); determination of "clouds" is done at such time as you would request re-flagging here. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note local flags granted for PCR,Patrol,local rollback. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural note as a non-crat: The ANI in question (which I closed) can be found here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless tools are removed for inactivity, a 2nd RfA would have no validity, regardless of outcome. The tools could not be forcibly permanently removed. There is no official "cloud". Tell me I'm wrong..... Leaky Caldron 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

All they need to do is go for a reconfirmation RfA; which, as we know, 'crats won't fail  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

ORLY? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to sound an arsehole now... but the reason it's not quite the same thing is linked to in your own opening statement there  ;) Mind you, I admit I should have linked to it originally, my fault. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

OK then, ORLY? ‑ Iridescent 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the funny papers tell us, surely Parisian suburbs aren't important right now. But at nearly eight-years old, there may be better examples. I repeat: Harrias 2. A "genuine" recall attempt, one which is not (unlike SoV), clearly under a cloud, or (like Herostratus) a phenomonally ill-judged recall. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, as Xaosflux pointed out “cloud” determination is made at the time of resysop request, not now. There has also been discussion of rRfAs recently, and if I recall, the bureaucratic consensus on that question was that if someone resigned the tools and failed a new RfA, the tools could not be turned back on until a successful RfA had taken place. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of the recent rRFA nonsense. Leaving clouds to one side, is that actually what the 'crats confirmed? Leaky Caldron 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like rRfAs either: I'm not defending them. The discussion was here. WJBScribe commented that is if an admin had resigned the tools and then run for an RfA after that and failed, they would not be eligible for restoration. This view seemed to be agreed to by the other 'crats commenting (Nihonjoe and Xaosflux). I think the distinction is that rRfAs aren't actually real RfAs: the person is not requesting the tools as they already have them. Whereas if I resigned the tools and did Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyBallioni 2, it would actually be an RfA as I did not have the toolset. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment by TonyBallioni. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

there is in my opinion a difference between someone losing a confirmation RfA, where there is found not to be a sufficient supermajority to have confidence, and someone just resigning when being criticized. I personally interpret under a cloud to mean a situation where the resignation is an an alternative to having a high probability of being involuntarily desysopped in an ongoing case, or something that awould obviously lead to such a sitution. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DGG, muchly what I was getting to say above. What WBScribe also said, to expand on The Ballioni, was  an admin who resigned under uncontroversial circumstances who submits an RfA instead of just asking for restoration of their rights and the RfA is unsuccessful. ^{my emph} That's the crux. We've never said—and I'm sure will never say—that an admin can't relinquish their toolset temporarily for any myriad of reasons, and that all they need to do is ask for their return; and that they do not need to run for RfA or rRfA in order to have them returned. That's the clear difference with the examples above: Sarek (pace) clearly jumped before they were pushed, and Herostratus probably should've done. I think we are rather over-emphasising the whole need to run again, whereas we should be emphasising that this only occurs in situations where a cloud has been detected. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the integer. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with not-Valjean. I didn't jump before I was pushed, I resigned after the case closed with an admonishment, but specifically choosing not to desysop. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for misrepresenting you SarekOfVulcan, it somewhat reads as if—apologies—that wasn't the result you were expecting at the time of your res' ;) On a lighter note, wot's non-Valjean?! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jean Valjean is famously prisoner number 24601; you're not. You're not a number, you're a free person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jean Valjean's prisoner number was 24601. :-) Therefore, you're not him. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, completely cretinous for me to forget the feller's name  :) a classic indeed. Well spotted. Might put that in my sig. "I'm not a mumbler, I'm a ghee fan" ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was agreeing with the general principles, not what they were saying about you in particular. Sorry for any offense, Sarek. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To follow up on my comment above, emphasis should be on "may", a resigned admin for most reasons "may" choose to request access via RFA. In many cases they "may" ask for direct access here. Personally, if a resigned admin were to run for RFA, and not be successful - then come and just ask for restoration here - I would not be inclined to process it - and it would likely lead to much debate. I saw some discussion at WT:ADMIN but it seemed to be going in the this is too edge case to bother direction. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello, since I don't use my admin rights much anymore, I'd like to request that they be removed on a voluntary basis. Thank you! Blurpeace 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for your service. I have granted the rights you had prior to your adminship, but if yo do not want these (or want additional userrights), let me know. –xeno^talk 15:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Actioned on meta by steward Teles. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Denelson83 has been temporarily desyopped because of concerns that the account may be compromised. This was done under emergency procedures and was certified by Arbitrators BU Rob13, KrakatoaKatie and Ks0stm.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• That's the boilerplate. We've contacted one of the stewards on IRC, but if one of you could do it sooner, we'd appreciate it. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 02:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• (Non-'crat/steward comment) Actioned by Teles at 2:52 UTC. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• @KrakatoaKatie: If there is evidence the account is compromised (no longer in control by the actual account owner), has a global lock been requested? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: That's in progress as well. Katie^talk 03:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, TY. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we ask for a tool that will allow a Bureaucrat or Steward to turn off 2FA for a particular account? The developer has no insight into who's who. They are going to rely on a Bureaucrat or Steward in any event to check the applicant's identity. If we want people to use good security, we have to make it convenient. Things inevitably go wrong and people will need support from time to time. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this has been requested and rejected before for not being practical and/or happening not often enough to bother coding a whole backend for this. Anyway, I think meta-wiki is the right place to suggest this, not enwiki. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Check out meta:Requests for comment/Expand two-factor verification as an option for all users on all wikis and especially the related links in the closing statement and parent record phab:T100375. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As of my last contact with the WMF regarding this, they want a way for the community (probably stewards and large-wiki bureaucrats) to disable 2FA on an account. Developers can access other information to confirm account identity, such as login records and email addresses, that even checkusers/stewards can't look at. However, they don't seem to do so (normally) in these cases. My understanding is that this is a low priority item on the WMF agenda, so I don't expect much motion on this for a while. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those things that all us developers really want to work on, but there's just so much more high prio stuff that it is hard to get around to. These items did end at 20 and 49 on the community wishlist though, so it might rank high enough to take on during a hackathon or something. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, this tool is described at phab:T180896 btw. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any summer internships? I know some students at Berkeley who might be interested to help.Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry to make work for you. I recently replaced my mobile device that had my 2FA Authenticator app. Regrettably, I can’t find the scratch tokens so I can’t login anymore. I’m still logged in here on this device which is how I’m able to post.

Anyhow, I’m going to abandon this account and switch all activity to jehochman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please be so kind as to move my ops to that account. Please name my original account something else and rename jehochman2 to be Jehochman. If that’s not doable, do whatever you think is right. Feel free to email to confirm that this is me and not some very clever imposter.

As a warning to all those watching, 2FA on Wikipedia isn’t fully baked. The emergency codes should be automatically emailed to the user. I haven’t had these troubles with any of the other web services where I use 2FA. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t had these troubles with any of the other web services where I use 2FA.

That's because most websites require you to verify your phonenumber and allow you to use this as a secondary route for recovery. As we don't want to store people's phone numbers (for privacy reasons, and I think the community would freak out), we don't have this additional backup methodology (and it does weaken the 2FA security to have them actually).

The emergency codes should be automatically emailed to the user

there is NO website that supports 2FA that will ever email you emergency codes. That would defeat the whole process. Almost every website will tell you to print them and store them securely (as do we)

I recently replaced my mobile device that had my 2FA Authenticator app

The simplest method is to deal with this is to disable 2FA with your old phone and then re-enroll on the new phone.

Feel free to email to confirm that this is me and not some very clever imposter.

Ehm... if you think that emailing is a method of confirming identity, then you might very well be an imposter. Rights should never be transferred based on such a simple check

Anyhow, I’m going to abandon this account and switch all activity

Recovery of the old account is possible, IF you can somehow prove your identity. For this create a ticket similar to: phab:T180654 and describe the evidence that you can provide to a functionary (don't throw it into the actual ticket right away, the sysop will set up a private conversation for that). Evidence that might be usable, is proving your access to the email address that you used for the original account, committed identity, GPG keys, in person contact with well respected members of the community, et etc... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't post here to be schooled. Why don't you listen and we'll see if somebody can help me. Jehochman2 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You can get 2FA reset. You aren't the first admin to have this issue, which Crats can't fix, but I'm betting someone smarter than I will come along and tell you the link to request that auth be removed from your primary account. Last time I saw it, it was fairly painless. It seems that many (myself included) preferred that as it maintained the histories of the admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. The help page seemed to indicate that this wasn't a good option, but I have posted to Phabricator. If it works I will update the help page so that others can benefit. Jehochman2 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Jehochman2: it really isn't a "good" option - but for well established users they are making some exceptions in entertaining petitions - the requirements for what a petition must include are not even well defined yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Jehochman: / @Jehochman2: , assuming you can convince a developer - a much better fix for your immediate need would be to petition to have 2FA removed from your account. An example phab ticket is phab:T185731 phab:T180654 (is better). Scratch codes are supposed to be very secret, so adding them to email is generally a bad idea. 2FA does need more improvements, which is why it is not available for everyone right now. Once you petition a developer, they may contact you to further authenticate you. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jehochman, you've emailed me before, so I know your email account. If you email me from that same email address, I can verify you. That is one of the things they probably will ask you to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• A QCU request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Request_from_WP:BN) has been opened as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  QCU withdrawn due to Jehochman's comments that he is on a different system, see withdraw note at QCU requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I reopened it, suggesting a check of Jehochman = Jehochman2. That should match and go part of the way to verifying that it's me. Jehochman2 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I've completed the check and posted the results.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  I double-checked and have also commented there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can we let this sit for a while and see if a developer is willing to help? Additionally, I may ask a few known people to verify that this is me. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Jehochman2: to find out - did you open a phab ticket? What is the ticket #? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  phab:T186115 Jehochman2 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've received an e-mail from the real Jehochman, and can confirm that that's him. Bishonen | talk 16:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC).

• Jehochman2, I got a new phone in December and also forgot to disable 2fa before wiping the old one, so I understand your plight well. After a brief moment of terror, I remembered that I still had my scratch codes. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have sent an email to an address previously known by me to belong to Jehochman and they have replied, so I'm convinced his account has not been compromised. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thank goodness! And thank you! Jehochman2 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've been busy in real life so haven't been posting on Wikipedia much, though I've been using it a lot as a reference. I'm glad this event has given me a chance to reconnect with some of my old friends. Jehochman2 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You might need to hit https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/all/ , login (register?) and file a request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Is this right? phab:T186115 Jehochman2 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

      Well, it says "Access denied" for me. Regards SoWhy 16:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

      • Items listed as "security" related can only be viewed by certain people (the owner can add 'subscribers' if they would like). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

        I assumed as much. My point was that we cannot confirm or deny that his request is right because only certain people can actually see it =) Regards SoWhy 17:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  They will look here and verify, I would imagine. There isn't a real policy on how this is done, or if it should be done, but then again, it isn't often it is needed. I'm not a fan of 2FA. Seems to be more burden than necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Coincidentally I also changed phones today and after reading this thread I made sure to be extra-careful not to disable my previous device before disabling 2FA (to re-enable it afterwards on my new device). Turns out though I can't re-enable it once disabled because I'm no longer admin. Oops! At least I'm not locked out. Wish there was a way to change devices without disabling first... :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Salvidrim!: I've enabled the ability to activate it for your account, if you still want to use it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  Speaking of which, why is 2FA still admin-only? ansh666 09:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  I guess because otherwise you would have to deal with the cases similar to the above one on an hourly basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  meta:Requests for comment/Expand two-factor verification as an option for all users on all wikis has some background, and yes there have been a number of slip-ups with 2FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

From his Facebook page, we gather that (administrator) User:Bhadani is no more. Shyamal (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines says we should remove permissions if there's reliable sourcing of the death. Is there? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Dweller: the Wikimedia India chapter posted condolences to social media link. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Coren (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Chris 73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. AngelOfSadness (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Midom (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI - some cleanup gaps

Heads up for anyone that follows WP:INACTIVE I think we've hit another bot processing snag for the next month - we're looking in to it now; includes bureaucrat Pakaran. Thanks for your patience. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

We also don't have a query for the bureaucrat activity report, see User talk:Madman/Archive 9#Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity redux. –xeno^talk 21:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Madman seems busy off-wiki; I've manually processed all of the missing users for WP:INACTIVE, note it includes one bureaucrat. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't see a Crat listed in March for INACTIVE. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Pakaran is no longer inactive. Stephen 11:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Great. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Pakaran is now active, at least as far as adminship requirements go. Looks like he's still considered active within the bureaucrat requirements until July of this year. Useight (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

¡Lo siento!

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#March_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Sebastiankessel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Pb30 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Rspeer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. SoLando (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Seicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Note, it appears Sebastiankessel is the first admin that will be impacted by the new "5 year" rule as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Rspeer (talk · contribs) should not have been desysopped, as they made a couple of edits yesterday. Graham87 12:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Undone I missed that edit during my normal checks because of the bot errors in creating the table and having an off-cycle. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to real life and work responsibilities, I am in the process of returning almost all of my advanced privileges across all of Wikimedia. This includes stepping down as a steward, which includes the rename right. I also intend to be semi-retired here on EnWiki. However, I plan on remaining active enough for both admin and bureaucrat purposes. To that end, I have requested global rename rights and will continue to monitor the various noticeboards and email lists. Therefore, my posting {{semi-retired}} on my userpage is meant as a courtesy to inform people that I am not likely to respond quickly; not that I am no longer interested in, or active enough, to continue being an EnWIki admin and bureaucrat. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Real life can definitely impact things at times. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A proposed change to the administrator inactivity policy has been approved by the community. Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA. Bureaucrats will need to check the logs of anyone requesting a resysop on the bureaucrats' noticeboard (or elsewhere) to ensure they meet the new requirements. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Will someone gently indulge me here. It is obviously a misunderstanding on my part and perhaps I am now just too lazy to look it up, but I thought that it was 2 years for an inactivity based desysop - or at least 2 years plays a part somewhere? Leaky Caldron 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The five-year limit is for admins who have not used the tools for five years before they were desysopped, i.e. one year no activity => desysop => regain tools by requesting here within two years but five years no tool use and one year no activity => desysop => need new RFA. Regards SoWhy 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the requirement of a new RfA (no automatic resysopping on request) applies after either (1) five years of no logged admin tool use including a year without any edits, or (2) three (one plus two) years of no edits at all. Is that right? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Desysop happens after a year without edits or logged actions, but other than that, correct. Regards SoWhy 14:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• How ironic Anna Frodesiak would be accused of an obscenity by a dick. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I fell off the wikiworld in 2009, but I'm ready to be back for light duty now if it's okay! Is there anything I need to do? --Masamage ♫ 01:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since your last edit before today was in 2009 as you said, you would have to reapply at RFA. Inactivity's been too long. Wizardman 01:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see--longer than three years. Okay, thank you. I'll probably let some edit history build up before I do that. Appreciate the reply! --Masamage ♫ 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#March_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Chochopk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Knowledge Seeker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Peridon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Jimp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding for note that Chochopk and Knowledge Seeker are affected by the five year rule and must go through RFA again. — Moe Epsilon 02:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Bureaucrats, there a number of users who feel that I have abused my admin rights and engaged in moving wars. Although I did my edits with the best of intentions to help the project, it has also created controversy, and after a decade of being a sysop I request that my status be changed. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the header says resysop, and Gryffindor is asking for a desysop. — Moe Epsilon 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you meant to head this "Desysop request", didn't you, Gryffindor? Bishonen | talk 12:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

That's what the template at the top said, sorry about the confusion. I just corrected it. Gryffindor (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, here's a link to the discussion for the archives. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Can the Crats confirm that this is not under a cloud just for record. Here is the ANI discussion.It has gone only to ANI not Arbcom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The cloud discussion would generally come up at the time of re-sysopping, but for the record, I would suggest that there is a cloud here and that Gryffindor should consider running for RfA again. There "under a cloud" terminology really refers to section 2 of WP:RESYSOP, which states that 'crats should Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. It has a note that this especially applies to resigning before an Arbcom case, but not exclusively. Worm^TT(talk) 19:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I bear Gryffindor no ill will at all, but as an observer of the AN/I discussion, I would agree with Worm That Turned that there is a cloud here, and would argue as such if a re-sysopping was requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with WTT, FWIW. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that as a non-'crat it's appropriate for me to be commenting here, but just for the record I concur with WTT. It is not sure that Gryffindor will ever want the tools back, but he is free at any time to request them here and the Bureaucrats will decide at that point if a resysoping RfA will be required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a note for the record that I removed User:Coffee's admin & edit filter rights yesterday, suspended at his request on the Arbcom mailing list. There is a bit of private information also involved, so there is little more I can say at this point. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the log entry you were going for.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: thank you for the note, I understand there can be private information that does not concern the community at large. As far as the mechanics, what restrictions are being imposed by your statement "please contact arbcom before reinstatement"? Were you not in the unique position of being an arbitrator and a bureaucrat, we would expect some minimal statement from arbcom as to any additional restrictions being imposed by the committee, in contrast to just something like editor x has requested to resign adminship per private communications - which would not come with any strings attached. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand. There are no restrictions beyond contacting Arbcom before reinstatement as part of any resysopping, who may have pertinent information for any bureaucrat who might be considering doing so. If that does happen, I'm sure that Arbcom (as a committee) would issue a statement. I hope that clarifies things. Worm^TT(talk) 16:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#May_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Cenarium (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Lupo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. AliveFreeHappy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. MichaelBillington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#June_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Doug (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. WilyD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. KaisaL (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Tony Fox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The following inactive bureaucrat is being de-bureaucrat'ed due to inactivity (criteria 1). Thank you for your service.

1. EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Request filed at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access) in meta:Special:PermaLink/18094339#EVula@enwiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done at meta. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And with that, enWiki is just a little less right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – The resignation has been processed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan has requested on his talk page [6] that his advanced privileges be revoked. Due to the current ARBCOM case, this would be considered "under a cloud". power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note he is blocked and hence cannot post the request himself.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan has emailed us with his resignation, and Worm will action it himself when daylight in the UK rolls around. There’s no rush. A motion about the case will be posted soon. Thanks, all. Katie^talk 01:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As the administrator status resignation has been confirmed to be legitimate, I've processed the -sysop action. However, I will leave it to Andrevan, the Arbitration committee, or other responsible persons to process the request for stewards to remove bureaucrat status at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have requested at Meta. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This was completed on meta. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the categories on his user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:39CB:C2B4:1ADB:1F2F (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Stephen 00:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For the archive notes, ArbCom dismissed the case as no longer being required in Special:PermaLink/845397156#Final_decision, noting that restoration of access may only be restored following a new RfA/RfB. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

I took a longer break than I thought I was gone for, but I've returned. I realize that it has been a very long time, but I would like my bit back. I will slowly dip my toes back into the water and refamiliarize myself of things going on. I've got a lot of reading to do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Was desysoped 20180306 for inactivity; last logged admin action was 20170213. Appears to be in order for restoration, standard 24 hour hold for comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back ! - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 11:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see the young Dodo back! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 11:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC).

Congrats on being the first true resysop of the year! I also believe that this will be the first time in about six months where we won't be having a net loss in admins.... -- Dolotta (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dolotta: Not even close, I don't think. Five admins desysopped for inactivity this month. One desysopped under a cloud. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I know what you mean. I am looking at the month our time here in the US and not UTC. The last time I checked, there won't be more than one desysop in late June/early July. That is how I came up with a net +2 (two new, one removed, and one resysopped). -- Dolotta (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So dodos haven't gone extinct after all! Dekimasuよ! 05:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! The bit is a little rusty looking, but I will polish it up right away. =) I'm sure blocking a vandal will bring all of the memories flooding back. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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

1. Topbanana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that Topbanana made edits to the article Marion Marshall (author) on 8 August 2017, which were later deleted after the article was proposed for deletion, thus they didn't technically qualify to be resysopped until this September. However I don't see the point of re-sysopping them since we'd probably have to desysop them again in another two months. Graham87 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Crazier things have happened, and two months is two months. Bit should be restored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Does the bot not check deleted edits, then? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The bot would need admin privileges to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Graham87: Thanks for calling this out - will track it under it's own review, as the deleted edits were "edits" they do count so I've restored access. As far as "2 months" go, we don't have to only do these on a certain day of a certain month, can reprocess anytime on or after 20180808. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Amorymeltzer: I'm restoring it now and will leave them a talk message. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Beureaucrats -- For what it's worth, Topbanana has since edited. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the note @Dolotta:, Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2018 has been updated and this is no longer listed. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The old account has been renamed to make it clear it is retired. As there is nowhere for this mail to go no new account has been made. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone (perhaps Angela?) have access to the User:Bureaucrats role account? It has an email enabled, but as the mailing list was deleted I imagine this is no longer desired or useful, and likely was simply never removed after the deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've no idea what the password was and it was set to the mailing list's email address so I can't retrieve the password. Angela (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the devs could recreate the mailing list, do a password reset, remove the email, and then redelete the mailing list? FWIW a dummy test email I sent around 45 minutes ago hasn't been bounced back, so either it's going somewhere or having a no-longer-valid email address leads to silent failure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier for the devs to disable email on the account? Regards SoWhy 14:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. They could also presumably just reset the password as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I updated the edit notice at Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats to warn anyone attempting to use this that it is no longer watched. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that since User:Bureaucrats doesn't have an edit it won't receive emails regardless per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Contact role accounts --Majora (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but it won't receive them anyways as the ML doesn't exist. What about usurping the account? Seems quick, clean, and easy. SQL^{Query me!} 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think usurping the account is the best idea. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I can usurp the account if that's the desired direction here. Note that it now requires tboverride rights to re-create a renamed username, so if another 'crat wants to re-create the account and put some notice that it's obsolete they can. Or the username could just be left unregistered. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We are not using that account for anything, do not have any directions asking anyone to use it, and have noted on the email page that it will not be monitored. I'm not really seeing what the need to do anything here is. Is there a current actual problem that needs resolving? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Users can still e-mail a role account whose destination e-mail does not exist and Mediawiki would still tell them the e-mail was successfully sent. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like something that should be raised as a bug on Phabricator so that it can be fixed properly rather for the general case (presumably it will apply to all users with email addresses that don't exist, not just role accounts) rather than fudged for this case individually. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: as far as the software goes there is no such thing as a "role account" that is just something we made up on-wiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: well - actually there sort of is, but this is not an example of it, there are accounts that designated in configuration such as User:MediaWiki message delivery. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, which rather strengthens my point. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: am I understanding that what you want is for the developers to create a new classification of user all together (establish "role accounts") for various purposes? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that developers should fix (or at least be made aware of) the problem of mediawiki reporting emails sent to non-existent addresses as being successfully delivered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: as far as I can see we do not report the delivery status of any email. In MediaWiki:Emailsenttext we say that we "sent" the email. Due to the batch nature of Internet email confirming a delivery is never possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Hmm, that is a point, but delivery failure notifications are a thing but are not exposed to the user. I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this (automated message on the talk page of sender and recipient?) but whether it is or it ins't possible this discussion would seem better suited to either phabractor or VPTECH than BN - which was the other part of my original point. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: agree, not really a BN item, feel free to copy/move that part to VPT. Note, this is a global issue, not a "role account" issue (e.g. any user can have a broken email address). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Simple is better. Couldn't one of you crats with the global rename permission just rename User:Bureaucrats to User:There is no longer a bureaucrat role account so don't send email to this address, and then recreate User:Bureaucrats with no email attached? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Wait. That's what "usurp" means, isn't it. I'm not the genius I (briefly) thought I was. Although I don't understand why this hasn't been done yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I put a usurp request in at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a usurp request is necessary - there obviously won't be any response from User:Bureaucrats, so why bother with the bureaucracy? Just rename User:Bureaucrats to something random and recreate User:Bureaucrats. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no need for the bureaucracy. I've renamed it to User:Old unused account 101001. No need to recreate User:Bureaucrats either - former usernames are now automatically blacklisted from future creation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: thank you, this matter should be resolved now. Anyone interested in further discussion on email processing is welcome to take it up at WP:VPT, if you have suggestions for improving the message feel free to drop an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Emailsenttext. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)