There is nothing further for bureaucrats to do in this matter. Clerking of RfA's is in the domain of 'crats, so this was an appropriate venue to raise a question about the possible removal of an RfA question. This is not the appropriate venue to further explore the motives or behaviors of any specific editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

 – Question has since answered by candidate. –xeno^talk 16:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this question is wholly inappropriate. I'm tempted to remove it, but I'd rather a bureaucrat did it if one agrees with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: have you brought your concern up with the question asker? It may need some rewording to make it clearer what they mean. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's a political quagmire. But if you think it will help, I'll ping them: Senegambianamestudy?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I find it rather problematic, but not enough to remove it without giving the asker the opportunity to either explain or self-revert. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The user made three edits yesterday, the last of which was the question at the RfA. Before yesterday, they hadn't edited since August 27, so the RfA could be over before they have a chance to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Using all my AGF powers, I don't see cause to remove the question right now. The RfA candidate is of course welcome to ignore it, or respond however they want. If this was my own RfA, I'd probably ask the questioner to provide more information if this was a topic I planned to participate administratively in - specifically to provide some source for their "...have left or are leaving the project" statement. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the question is wholly inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I don't see how. It's not a personal attack nor is it trolling. It's a difficult question and the candidate doesn't have to answer it, at all. I think removing that question would appear to be overreach by a cabal intent to pre-determine the outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A cabal? Are you kidding?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not a cabal. But why not just accept that it is a horse that will not run and hat this request? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering that it seems to be a topic being broadly discussed by WMF in Tunis this week maybe we should just AGF? (although it is wholly unconnected with being an Admin) Leaky caldron (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I agree that it's not an appropriate question. But, on the other hand, one of the attributes of a good admin is being able to deal with inappropriate questions and/or weird situations. I don't see any justification for removing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Roy. It's an odd question and perhaps "inappropriate" to have asked a specific candidate a difficult question, but it is not extraordinary or out of a reasonable range of questions one may be asked when in the thick of an onsite issue. The candidate could simply decline to answer or offer an obvious and brief non-answer e.g. "I have no [or not enough] knowledge of the issue(s), etc". N.J.A. | talk 14:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Candidate had answered the question at about the same time as my comment above. I think they handled it well, and perhaps we can move on? N.J.A. | talk 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask. There is nothing weird or inappropriate about it. Given that an admin's actions or lack of can impact editor retention, especially in an area which is so underrepresented, I think it is a reasonable question to ask an RFA nominee. We should not just be asking easy questions in my opinion, but also difficult questions in order to determine whether the nominee understand the sensitive issues that has been affecting this project for years i.e. bias and racism, and to guage their attitude to the issues. They may not be able to fix the problem. However, an understanding of the issues, and the part they will play or at least attempt to play in order to resolve the problem are noteworthy in my opinion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, I think what people find objectionable here is your choice of forum. While I think you have legitimate points, I think it would have been more appropriate to raise your concerns as a community discussion (perhaps at one of the Village Pumps?) rather than springing it on an RfA candidate who doesn't appear to have any connection to the issue. creffett (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see @Creffett: it seems that some of the editors here objected to the question period. Surely, if I am going to give my vote to an admin nominee, I would like to know their attitude and/or solutions to an area that directly affects people like me and the subjects/articles we work on at English Wikipedia before being given the admin tools. As such, I think RFA is the appropriate place to pose those questions to a potential admin - who would have the power to impact editor retention especially in an already sensitive area. It's not personal. I was not looking for a panacea or a magic wand, but an understanding of the issues and the part (no matter how small) they will play in order to resolve the issues that had plagued English Wikipedia for years. I'm surprised that @Bbb23: who by the way is an admin, bothered to open this thread after reading my question, which in my view is relevant according to the spirit of Wikipedia (i.e. a collaborative effort of editors regardless of nationality, race, gender etc.). By opening this thread, this tells me he does not understand the issues, and therefore took offence to a reasonable question asked at RFA. And for me, that is a problem. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Senegambianamestudy, so now that the RfA is over, what kind of an answer to that question would have resulted in your !voting support? It seems to me to be an unanswerable "trick" question, because the part that an admin will play in addressing systemic bias in the world is, obviously, none. That's way outside the scope of what an admin does. It strikes me like you're interviewing a gas station attendant and asking them what they'll do to solve world hunger. – Levivich 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a bunch of thank yous planned, including one for Senegambianamestudy, for the thought that editors gave and time they took in participating at my RfA. So let me start by thanking Senegambianamestudy for just that. I'm not sure it was a trick question and I'm not sure how my question played among voters on the whole (especially as their oppose came relatively late in the process). But I would love to learn what I can from Senegambianamestudy's perspective about the topic as it is very much one that I would like, at minimum, to understand and do not take lightly their suggestion that I don't understand it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to accept good faith as to the question, that's certainly your prerogative (congrats, btw), but I don't. I agree with Levivich. S is a crusader. It's obvious from the question, from their edits, and from their userpage. I haven't reviewed all their edits, but, generally, agenda-driven editors are not a net asset to the project. I also think the 'crats might prefer that we take this somewhere else, but it seems to be dribbling on, so consider this my dribble.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not come here and accuse me of crusading and make up stuff about me. Your bullying tactics are not gonna work with me. You should be ashamed of yourself (especially for an admin) with your attacks and this whole thread you started against me. You do not like my question because the issue does not affect you and you do not want it highlighted. That is the issue isn't it? Editors who are affected may think otherwise. You were the one who started this dribbling mess of a thread against me and now you don't want to play anymore? If this is not the right forum, why did you open this thread against me here? Why couldn't you just come to my talk page and leave me a note? You wanted drama that's why you've opened this thread against me. Give me a break! And here is just a small example of how an eadmin's behaviour/action can impact editor retention. You did not behave like a good admin here. As such, you are more useless to this project than I am. And for your info, I don't give damn what you think of me. I have nothing else to say to you. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

After a period of inactivity, I find I am desirous of returning to the fold. KillerChihuahua (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) 14:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed for inactivity on 2018-09-01; Last admin log on 2016-01-14. Appears to pass the 3-year and 5-year rules. There is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests, but I'm not seeing any blockers. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In my defense, I was ill for a while. Good to see you still active, Xaosflux! KillerChihuahua 14:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua: no excuses! (Well none needed :D) Welcome back! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you are too kind. :-) KillerChihuahua 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 14:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! El_C 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! KillerChihuahua 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolved via renaming, keep in mind for future cases - the edit count restriction on renames has been relaxed. — xaosflux ^Talk

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

 – Renamed instead.

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

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

Can my admin bit be moved from my current main account JamesBWatson to my alternative account JBW? For quite a long time I have been unhappy with using a pseudonym which looks like a real name but isn't, and would prefer to use one which nobody can imagine is my real name. I created the JBW account in April 2014, but I have never made any edits with it apart from a few edits in that same month setting up some user space pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You actually can usurp that name and have the global account renamed; in this case, you do not lose the contribution history.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: the usurp/rename process is more appropriate for this use case, and will also avoid you having to do this on meta-wiki and commons for access there. Functionally it would be along the lines of:

1. Rename User:JBW to User:JBW (usurped)
2. Rename User:JamesBWatson to User:JBW
3. (optionally) rename User:JBW (usurped) to User:JamesBWatson

Any of your global-renamer peers should be able to help with that. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, will that actually work in this case? I know that when Malleus became Eric, he had to create a new account and transfer the userrights across because the devs were worried that renaming an account with 140,000 edits would crash the database. ‑ Iridescent 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• There’s no need for a usurp. Like Iri suggested it’d be more difficult (it can be done, but requires sysadmin supervision.) Just make sure to clearly link the two accounts and the original RfA in the log entry and it’s fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's doable now. There was a software update a few months ago and developer supervision is no longer required for any renames (see [1] and global-renamer list, and example rename of >200,000 edits on dewiki [2] which went through within the same time as all the user's other local accounts even with zero edits). @JamesBWatson:, let us know if you want the rename route as xaosflux suggests. Maxim_(talk) 11:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I was trying to find the tech news on this, but the links Maxim provided are fine. This isn't a very complicated one (say an account with 100's of thousands accounts on hundreds of projects or anything like that) - and the rename limit was relaxed. You are right that it used to be prohibitive. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh nice. I thought 100K was still our “ask for help” limit. Good to know. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done this kind of renames quite a few times as a S and happy to help you if you are fine to process this way. — regards, Revi 12:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, willing to process as well. Looks fine as a self-usurp. –xeno^talk 12:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If the rename method is doable then I would much prefer that. The only reason I asked for the other method is that I thought my account couldn't be renamed because of the number of edits. User:JBW (usurped) already exists, but something like User:JBW (old) should be OK. Just one more question. Does anyone know whether I can do the rename myself (I am a global renamer) or is renaming one's own account impossible? No problem with someone else doing it if necessary, but if I can do it myself I may as well. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It should probably work. I'd say give it a try. There are two renamers and steward willing to do this, so there really should be no questions about impropriety. Maxim_(talk) 12:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You will be logged out (and cannot login) while your remames are being processed. Just note this. I think nobody has tried self-renaming. — regards, Revi 12:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, then maybe I was the first to try it. The answer is that the "Rename global user" comes up with a big red message saying "You cannot rename yourself". I have renamed JBW to JBW1, so that's no problem. -revi or xeno or someone, can you rename JamesBWatson to JBW for me? Being logged out is no problem, because I am out of time now, and need to go off and do other things. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gonna do it. — regards, Revi 12:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Renames are complete and you should be able to log in. I think you can take care of the part 3, so leaving it to you. — regards, Revi 13:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That's great, -revi. Thanks. And thanks to everyone else who provided information or advice above. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I quite liked your old name ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Boing!: Oh dear. You are the second person to tell me that since the renaming. If I'm going to disappoint all my fans then maybe I'll have to ask REVI to change it back. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 19:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I for one don't care about pseudonymous user names, even if they look like real names. But I understand your reasons for changing it. Reyk _YO! 11:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We'll just have to get used to it :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Forgive me for raising this ahead of time, but the thought occurred to me (prompted by an arb saying explicitly that they intended to !vote in any such RfA) that in cases where arbitrators have voted to desysop an admin or (ahem) voted to maintain a 'desysop' (those following along will know what that means, but best to keep this general), is it left to individual arbitrators (indeed even ex-arbs) on whether to !vote in an RfA run by an editor who asks the community for the bit back, or is there some etiquette where this is best avoided? What I am trying to say is would bureaucrats discount such !votes or give them less weight? Would this apply more or less in cases where arbs were privileged by sight of off-wiki or private evidence? i.e. Should arbs be allowed to influence RfAs both by voting in a case and by !voting (or even just commenting) in an RfA? In some cases, I can see arguments for it being seen as arbs interfering. In other cases, there may genuinely be reasons arbs feel they need to speak up again at an RfA as well as at the case where the desyopping took place (in some cases, it is a support after some time has passed - but where the RfA takes places very soon after the desysopping, then it can become political if arbs are seen to be !voting to maintain the result of their recent vote in a case). If you want to leave this bridge until it actually needs to be crossed, that is fine, but I thought it worth raising as some of these issues may be coming your way soon. (I am sure someone has the time to find examples where arbitrators and ex-arbs, including me, !voted in an RfA following a previous desysopping by ArbCom where those arbs had voted on the desysopping). Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• If memory serves there was an incident in a RfA a few years ago where a (then ex) arbitrator caused a controversy by writing a long argument that was effectively an oppose but wasn't called such. Beyond that I don't think there are any special rules for arbitrators partaking in a RfA that I know of, but I am not a bureaucrat. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I feel like this is starting to get into WP:CREEP. --Rschen7754 06:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I stand behind this opinion. I don't see this as any different than someone who was desysopped for private and offwiki reasons. And besides, if it is anything like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2, even if every arbitrator votes oppose it will be 10 opposes which will be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other votes. --Rschen7754 06:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I seem to recall generally supporting those who are willing to try for another RfA after an desysop by Arbcom - it goes with my thought process that adminship should be easy to give and remove, and if the individual has moved on, then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In this particular case, obviously I would be an extremely inappropriate 'crat to close an RfA and wouldn't touch that with a bargepole, but being able to make a statement on whether I think Fram is fit to be an administrator - as a community member? I would expect to be able to. I don't honestly know how I would vote at the moment, and I'm not sure I would vote - but I don't like the idea of having that choice taken away from me. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of any relevant policy or consensus prohibiting Arbs from !voting and as a Crat am well trained to follow policy and consensus. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is that the five day training course they send you on before appointing you as crat? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  In modern organisations, only 10% of training is given using such methods and in actuality, 70% of training comes "on the job" and Dweller has been on this job for quite some time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• TBH, I'm in the same boat as Dweller in that it is likely not against any policy or even guideline; perhaps there's not even an essay about it. Still, to be perfectly blunt, I would consider it VERY poor form, and it would likely influence any of my future voting for that individual Arb. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC) (edit:) I'll add that goes for both situations; supporting or opposing - I strongly feel that anyone promoted to sit in judgement should not be involved in the individual RfA, even as far as a strong comment. — Ched (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see any policy based reason that would preclude a member or former member of the arbitration committee from participating in an RfA discussion, even if the administrator candidate was a party to a case they voted in. I certainly wouldn't see cause to exclude only committee members that voted for or against specific remedies. Likewise, other parties to a case involving the candidate wouldn't be summarily barred. I may give less weight to !votes where the only reasoning was something like "Oppose - because I know a secret that I can't talk about" - as its value in contributing to the consensus measuring exercise that is an RfA is weaker. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Arbitrators have in the past fairly routinely supported and opposed admin candidates who ran again after desysop by ArbCom (or resignation during pending Arb requests) where the candidates ran some time subsequent to the desysop. In that context, the arbitrators tend to be offering opinions on whether the concerns that resulted in the desysop has been addressed. I am not aware that there has ever been a candidate who ran immediately after a desyop by ArbCom, effectively to test whether the ArbCom remedy had the support of the community. That does change the picture somewhat, but I can't see a policy basis for discounting Arbitrators' votes - it is a matter for them whether they think the community would expect them to steer clear in the circumstances. Echoing Xaosflux, were I still a bureaucrat, I would be minded to treat with skepticism opposition by anyone on the basis of secret evidence that won't be shared and the candidate has had no opportunity to address. I have to say that were I an Arbitrator and someone I voted to desysop immediately ran a successful RfA afterwards, I would feel obliged to resign - but that will be a matter for individual Arbitrators if we end up in that territory. WJBscribe (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously there's no policy or guideline that forbids it, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure we're in undiscovered territory here. It would appear to be a unique situation where an ex-admin who was desysopped on the basis on private (but on-wiki) evidence ran an RfA, and I can see issues with any Arb voting against them but declining, for obvious reasons, to show the diffs on which they based their decision. The other issue here is that even bureaucrats can't see that evidence, and would therefore be hamstrung on whether to give such a vote any weight. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know if this is the episode referred to by Jo-Jo Eumerus above, but i do recall it happening and, going back, i still find the undeclared oppose rather shocking. That being said, the arbiter in question was called out several times by other editors, which leads me to believe that as a community we are sufficiently intelligent to generally sort through chaff and bran to find the grain ~ in particular, the bureaucrats whom we trust to do so in this arena do so well and properly. Which is really just a way of saying that should the hypothetical proposed turn into reality, i for one trust that the 'crats will work out what to do without having to have it all laid out beforehand. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I had forgotten or was not aware of that (it is on the RfA talk page). That is the same arbitrator (courtesy ping) who has been saying during the case that "I would believe him and vote for him" (6 September) changing to "I will likely vote oppose at a future RfA" (16 September). I am sure I was not the only one that was uncomfortable to see potential future RfA !votes being used in that fashion during an arbitration case by an arbitrator who was tasked with fairly deciding on a desysopping remedy, but appeared instead to be wanting to express his opinion in an RfA and trying to push the case result that way. I hope that makes it clearer why I am concerned about the potential for any future RfA to be derailed by arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Ched, and if I were an Arb I'd feel ethically bound to sit out an RfA for Fram in these circumstances. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I had intended to get involved by asking Fram some questions and then voting either support or oppose depending on Fram's responses. However, as there is a feeling that such an approach from an Arb who had voted to desysop would be inappropriate, and that I had previously got involved in an RfA for someone I have voted to desysop, which proved controversial enough that it prompted changes to the layout at RfA so that general comments now come at the end, I will not be getting involved in Fram's RfA. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just adding my opinion that all sitting arbs should recuse themselves from a Fram resysoping RfA, and naturally lest we forget, any WMF staff members of involved departments, even if using their non-staff en.Wiki accounts Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• My feelings are the exact those of Ched and Kudpung - Common sense really would say "It's probably best I don't !vote here given I've already !voted to support their desysop" however there is no policy or guideline that forbids it, I just hope for the sake of keeping the peace and making it less-dramatic as poosible Arbs/WMF don't participate it in but like I said nothing forbids it. –Davey2010^Talk 08:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• My feelings are the same as WJBScribe, and different from Ched and Kudpung (and others). I would appreciate the votes and comments of Arbs at an eventual Fram RFA, in line with appreciating thoughtful and considered commentary from everyone at any RFA. We have uncontroversially accepted supports from (ex)Arbs - Newyorkbrad and Opabinia Regalis come to mind - in recent re-RFAs for people desysopped previously by Arbcom. And while doubtless some people will treat an eventual Fram RFA as a referendum on Arbcom's desysop, I do hope at least part of the discussion will be about how Fram intends to behave going forward and whether the community feels that is compatible with adminship. Depending on Fram's timing, nomination, and answers to questions, I would not at all be surprised to see some arbs who voted for a non-return of the bit at RFAR vote for Fram's return to adminship at RFA. Martinp (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Consideration of a secret T&S dossier at RfA

As the arb case stands right now, Fram isn't going to get resysoped at the conclusion. For the outcome to change, two arbitrators would need to switch votes and from an outsider's perspective it looks unlikely for it to happen. If Fram were to run to RfA, how would we consider opposes based on this T&S dossier? If we look at proposed FoF #15, it would appear that this dossier is a major consideration for proposed remedy #2d. If memory of previous similar cases serves me right, a healthy percentage of opposes would probably just cite the arbitration case. We would have no coherent sequence of diffs to work with. Another thought... if there is an RfA and goes into the discretionary zone, what's the bar for recusal? It seems that most active crats have commented at length in the case (requests)/WP:FRAM/used tools. Frankly I dont think it's difficult to figure out what most of us think of the whole matter... Maxim_(talk) 12:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As a head's up, there is a non-trancluded RfA already created (not ready yet, as far as I can tell, see creator's talk page) and being !voted on... Good point about how impartial bureaucrats can be. Hope that can be resolved somehow. Carcharoth (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: I commented above regarding how I may weigh opposes based solely on the participant knowing a secret. As far as participants citing the conclusions of functionaries with access to NDA'd information in their rationales, I think I'd give them the same sort of weight that I usually would give to other such NDA information (i.e. the conclusions of checkusers or oversighters) - even the weight that we may give participants that cite the conclusions of administrators' reviews of traditionally deleted contributions. As far as recusals go, the only bright-line rule traditionally observed is participation in the RfA. I certainly could see a call to recuse if a 'crat were recently and directly involved as a party to any escalated dispute resolution with the candidate. I don't see merely discussing a dispute to require recusing. In general, I trust that our 'crats will self-identify if they have a conflict of interest, and engage in discussion should someone else perceive such a conflict (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2/Bureaucrat_chat#Additional_recusals for a recent example). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Typical NDA-ed information is private and almost always inaccessible by the peasants whereas this part. case explicitly covers information, all of which is public. This ought to be a basic reasoning line, (irrespective of wherever you find yourself ultimately) and that's missing in your analysis. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that both checkuser and oversighted information is available to other checkusers and oversighters, so even if they can't discuss the information itself, they can contradict someone using that information incorrectly. Here, we have "something I've seen but I can't say what it is", which is effectively impossible to confirm or contradict. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As regards bureaucrat recusal, the rule of necessity might have to be invoked. Probably deserves a separate subheading. –xeno^talk 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the much less active 'crats might not have made any posts in re Fram. Whether they would be more impartial is less clear. UninvitedCompany 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

If there's no crat who's considered neutral so it can't be performed locally, then presumably the technical responsibility for flipping the bit will default to someone on this list. The level of irony would probably exceed Wikipedia's quota for the next three years. (In all seriousness, in the unlikely event that this does end up in the discretionary zone and every current crat is considered as being unable to close it, this might be one of the rare situations where Jimmy dusting off the Founder bit might make sense.) ‑ Iridescent 19:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: it would fall to stewards well before employees were engaged, as they take care of administrator promotions in the case where local communities are unable to (though they may kick it back and tell us to elect more bureaucrats first!) — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a dedicated section on Stewards policy: "Local bureaucrats are responsible for granting sysop, bureaucrat, and bot rights. Stewards should only grant these rights on a project if there are no active bureaucrats available on that project" [emphasis mine]. So I'd rather argue you will have to de-crat everyone or every crats should remain silent for at least few months before we can kick in which is just not going to happen. :P — regards, Revi 11:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: I see the word "available" in that section as important - a crat with a conflict of interest is not available to act as a crat on that case. Obviously not all conflicts of interest are equal, e.g. if a crat is (co-)nominator then there is no circumstance in which they should be closing the discussion (even if it is unanimous support), but "expressed opinions in a related matter" is more fuzzy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@-revi: agree it just not going to happen - just that in some bizarre situation it still wouldn't end up with WMF employees to deal with as the next step. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And as UC alludes, we have 'crats who have been practically or actually inactive for the last several months that could be tapped. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made any statements regarding Fram. Useight (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone should give the "super secret evidence" a second thought. According to what we've been told, there is actually nothing secret about any of it, it was all compiled from diffs that can still be viewed. The only privacy concern is T&S own invention, that they can never tell us who submitted the evidence even though we all totally know who it was. If the evidence is here on wiki, let if be presented here on wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• +1 Lourdes 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• +1 — Ched (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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

1. Pakaran (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (a)
2. Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (b)

   (a) Note: due to total inactivity, this also applies to bureaucrat permissions. This does not prevent resuming 'crat permissions as long as it is done before 2019-12-28, see also last month's discussion. Last administrative log: 20180902.

   (b) Note: Last administrative log: 20120313, in excess of 5 years.

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

SRP request filed for crat access removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready to return to adminship. Please could you reinstate? Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no issues after the 24 hour hold. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Just sysophood, or intadmin as well? I'd support you picking it up as well, although per WP:INTADMIN and your resignation of both, all that's needed is you to request it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking; I hadn't given it any thought. I suppose I could lend a hand with certain requests if the opportunity arises — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Hi Martin, please confirm that you have WP:2FA enabled as required for IAdmin flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I do indeed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WilyD (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)}

If I'm reading it right, I think I'm eligible to ask for the admin bit back? I didn't make any edits for ~26 months link, and haven't made any admin actions for ~47 months also link, which is less than the three and five years the message left on my talk page says would make me re-RFA? My kid is now old enough he often wants me to leave him alone, so I've a bit more time these days  ;) Cheers, WilyD 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Status notes:

RfA from 2007-06-01

Admin access was removed 2018-06-01 for total inactivity

Last administrative log appears to be: 2015-11-13

— xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@WilyD: everything appears to be in order for reinstatement, there is a standard 24-hour hold on these requests for community comment. I suggest you update your user and talk pages to indicate you are back to editing, as well as look over some of the Admin Newsletter Archives to catch up on what has been going on for the last few years. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay-Dokey. WilyD 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nifty, thanks. WilyD 18:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment on implementing the community consensus for a stricter resysop policy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a list of users resysopped after inactivity? If not, is that something that could be created by the crats? It would serve as a useful tool to evaluate the benefits of those resysops to the community. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, Yes, see WP:RESYSOPS. SQL^{Query me!} 16:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, great, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems a good time as any to throw in my annual thanks to Graham87 for keeping this and other related lists up to date. –xeno^talk 22:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Awwww, thanks! Graham87 02:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

<hat type="software engineer">Has anyone looked into automating this process somehow? Just seems like something that would be pretty easy to have a bot do.</hat> creffett (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

How long would it take for the amount of time the bot saved to exceed the amount of time spent coding and requesting approval for such a bot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory link to the XKCD on the topic. Answer is "probably not worth it," but it's triggering my "automate all the things" reflex. creffett (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No need for further discussion here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Resolved

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

I would like to request restoration of the admin flag that was fairly recently removed for inactivity. I hope and intent to resume more regular activity. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Was desysoped on 2019-08-01 for inactivity, last admin logged action was 2018-06-27. Appears to be in order for restoration after a 24-hour standard hold for comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time this user has been desysopped for inactivity. DES, why so many long periods of complete inactivity? --valereee (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, I don't think it's any of our business why there are many long periods of inactivity. I'm sure plenty of our admins have lives outside the project. As concerns the restoration of rights, everything looks in order. Maxim_(talk) 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We'd be asking about it if it were a fresh RfA. I think that makes it a valid question. --valereee (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, if it were an RfA. This is a request to restore the right under the current guidelines for restoration due to loss for inactivity. The user is not required to answer questions or explain the reason for inactivity, whether this occurred more than once, etc. They can offer an answer, but an explanation is not required, N.J.A. | talk 12:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• If people want to change the resysop policy WT:ADMIN is the place to do it not here. There’s an open RfC that still needs to be closed there now on the issue, or people are free to make new suggestions, but as it stands this policy is clear that a resysop is allowed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Whatever, the "24 hour hold for comments" means, surely it means people like Valereee can comment with a question about the circumstances. Whether DESeigel decides to make some response is up to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: it is primarily to allow for editors to raise policy-related issues regarding WP:RESYSOP. General questions may be posed, however they are not required to be answered. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As to your second sentence, I think I said as much. But this is what RESYSOP says: "...it is required that a minimum of 24 hours elapse for multiple bureaucrats and other editors to comment on the request before restoring permissions. This time may be lengthened at a bureaucrat's discretion, if new information arises." So, the period includes inquiries into new information, and is not limited to commentary regarding policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind the 24 hour period's purpose is listed as being "To allow time for requests to be checked thoroughly" and the other numbered parts of that section specify what is to be checked. We certainly could make mistakes in thinking that someone meets or doesn't meet the requirements, and the hold allows for anyone to raise such a concern. Anyone is welcome to participate in these discussion, though we are not going to extend time normally just because there are off-topic questions pending. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It remains that good faith questions are allowed, and what crats should not be doing is saying to someone like Valereee 'don't ask' or perhaps even worse, 'you're being impertinent.' DESiegel has now responded, without any sense that there is impropriety in asking. There is nothing wrong with learning about Wikipedia inactivity through one person's experience, and it may be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am happy to respond to Valereee and any others with similar questions. If I am to resume activity as an admin, I ought to have the trust of the community, or at least to deserve that trust. I had my work and life responsibilities increase to the point that I didn't have time to edit on a regular basis, and I find very irregular editing not so rewarding, and particularly admin work not something I can usefully do for just a few posts a month. I now expect to be able to resume a more regular editing pace at least for the near future. In fact I plan to attend an edit-a-thon next week. Beyond that, I cannot predict. I am probably likely to be something of an all-or-nothing editor, either almost every day for months, or nothing at all. I think I have made a number of useful contributions over the years, both as an editor and as an admin. I wish to resume making such. I can't see how that is a downside, even if I can't promise to continue at a fixed rate indefinitely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh I would add that I much prefer to be addressed and refereed to as "he" and "him", not "they" and "them". I understand that many people do now prefer that form, and that is fine for them. I have this preference listed in my profile. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• I should mention that my password here has never been used on any other site, and is not weak. I am an IT professional in my day job, and I am aware of the needs for account security. To the best of my knowledge, this accoutn has never been compromised. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am in the process of reviewing all issues of the admin newsletter for the past yeasr, to be sure I am aware o relevant policy changes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You're well within our current standards, they'll flip your switch in a few hours, don't sweat it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019‎ (UTC)

• No concerns here. –xeno^talk 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Done –xeno^talk 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DESiegel, I appreciate the willingness to respond and civility. --valereee (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

At the discussion on DQ's talk page about the close of Greenman's RfA, one crat (Xeno) has said a crat chat would have been beneficial, and one crat (DQ, the closer) has said consensus was clear enough. Would any other crats like to weigh in? DQ indicated this would be a better forum than her talk page. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 04:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC) (!voted support)

(continuation to talk page discussion) Of course, the other side to all the concerns raised at DQ's talk page is that at least some opposes (like me) wouldn't have bothered voting there towards the end as the curve looked nowhere near reaching 65% by closing time, and there was no good reason to further pile on opposes on a productive editor's RFA which is only NOT YET, not not ever. The RFA had a healthy amount of opposes with solid reasons from experienced editors in very good standing. If an RFA is likely to be routinely IARed down to 60 or 50% for whatever reason, what's the 65% cutoff about. If there's opposes to be struck, do so before it closes, but the merit of unstruck opposes is to be discussed at BuChat, not in the discussion of whether to start a BuChat itself. Is that not so? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a hard cutoff, this was confirmed in the recent RfC on the topic. And I wouldn’t say that opposes needed to be struck, but they did need to be evaluated and weighted based on (among other things,) whether they had a strong basis in policy and guidelines and provided evidence to back up their position. Upon being asked to provide examples of controversial edits that violated the COI policy, those participants remained silent. It’s not clear that DeltaQuad performed such an analysis, and certainly having a bureaucrat discussion would have ensured that a transparent and collaborative examination of this nature could occur. Failing that, DeltaQuad should provide a detailed closing rationale, which I’ve asked them to do so. –xeno^talk 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that Xeno has opened this door, even though I opposed, I agree that the rationales accusing Greenman of dodgy paid editing were poorly supported, unfounded even.

@Usedtobecool: Only clearly invalid votes on RfAs (e.g. votes from sockpuppets or duplicates) need to be struck. Bureaucrats have the discretion to "attribute less weight" using some unspecified methodology to rationales which they consider to contain less substance. Back in the day people used to say "RfA is not a vote" but that mantra is something I have always been extremely skeptical about because I think it was engineered to enable gaming of the system, anyway... the threshold, which is now 65%, has never been a solid red line but a fuzzy one which allows a bit of leeway, so 61% with a "rising trend" towards the end of the RfA is a reasonable situation for a crat chat IMO. (But this user is not a bureaucrat and does not wish to be one) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I was also bemused by DeltaQuad's decision to close without a crat chat. The community very clearly decided recently that RfAs are not straight votes, but consensus building exercises like any other. This one was unusual in that a large number of opposes cited a COI issue that IMHO does not stand up to scrutiny. Does anyone seriously think correcting sourced factual errors about your own employer is harming the Wiki, or that just leaving known errors in place would be a better choice than fixing them? Because that's all the "COI" was. It didn't cross any lines into subjective wording choices or adding opinions to the article, which shows that the candidate understands what they should and shouldn't do. Opposers were challenged on this point and failed to give further evidence that the candidate had done anything harmful. In any other venue, a thoughtful closer would have given less weight to those, and that may well have resulted in a consensus to promote. I'm sure DQ acted in good faith etc, but their decision to bypass the crat chat, and their decision to simply rely on a vote count, was wrong,particularly given that a former another crat has queried the close above as well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the circumstances this looks like a hasty, impetuous and ill-judged close by a newish 'crat keen to press the close buttons for the (first?) time. It might not be overreach - certainly over zealous. "I closed it after I was up for the day" looks like excuse making. DeltaQuad should consider their future participation in obvious close calls. This just looks bad. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm stunned by the level of bad faith that is being extended to DeltaQuad here. There are suggestions that she has closed the RfA early, that she was somehow involved after stating that she did not see a need for an extention. May I remind people that the role of the bureaucrat is simply to weigh the consensus of the RfA. There is no requirement for a 'crat chat if the closing 'crat can see a clear consensus. What's more, a WP:CRATCHAT is not a formal process (as in, we just have an information page to give us an idea on how to do it), the answer is not binding. By putting these sorts of requirements in we are simply making RfA more of a big deal than it already is. The discretionary range is down to 65% and there is a statement on WP:RfA that almost all RfAs below 65% will fail. It's not unreasonable to ask DQ for an explanation of her thinking, she has given that on her talk page, and I am satisfied with that response. Worm^TT(talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not evoke bad faith here. There is clearly enough genuine concern expressed by very experienced members of the community. You swinging by and sprinkling your magic Arbcom dust after the year you have had won't wash with me. This was at best a dubious and rushed decision. These elected office holders are accountable - please allow that to happen without YOU assuming bad faith. In my case it's not so much about bad faith - it's about no faith at all. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, Magic Arbcom dust? You do make me chuckle. I am a crat and was commenting as such, but glad to know I'm quite so typecast. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, If the cap fits. You are keen to cast aspersions on the likes of me despite it being as plain as day here that any 'crat choice other than the immediate, undocumented close of no consensus was likely to be provocative. We don't want 'crats behaving in a way that creates controversy when a more measured approach would ameliorate the situation. It is not bad faith to point out that other, calmer, considered options existed, including allowing it to run a bit longer to assess the swing taking place. When you turn up you carry a lot of authority. It is a shame where that authority is clearly slanted towards a fellow long term functionary. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That was an extraordinarily presumptuous and bad-faith series of accusations you've made toward DeltaQuad. Other people may have expressed genuine concern, but nearly the entirety of what you've said, with perhaps the exception of "This just looks bad", would be better off struck. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I was the one who suggested that Amanda closed the RfA early. That was based on the timestamp of the nominator which (at least on my browser) reads as "12:12 pm, 5 October 2019" while Amanda's close is time stamped as "9:56 pm, 12 October 2019". Looking at the edit history this appears to be the result of a technical error by the nominator in setting up the RfA. As regards the appearance of involvement - yes, I still think that a 'Crat who has given an opinion on a point in a RfA is not best placed to be the one to make a final decision on that point. I don't see that as an assumption of bad faith - I see it as a discussion point. These points have been discussed directly with Amanda on her talkpage, and I am satisfied with her response, and that she has provided a rationale on the RfA. My take on assuming bad faith is when someone implies motives behind an action which are not evident. I don't see how asking for clarity, or disagreeing over valid points can be bad faith - but if you look over my comments again and find I have implied inappropriate motives, I will strike them and apologise to Amanda. SilkTork (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, At the point that I wrote my comment about bad faith, the discussion was in a different place. You and Amanda have discussed things reasonably, as have most participants after my comment - I don't think there's anything left to be concerned about. If I felt there was, I would be taking it up with individuals on their talk page, as is my wont Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• This was an unusual RFA and an interesting call for a crat. There aren't many RFAs that drop below 50% mid way then rally and end at 60%. Personally I think the direction in which a discussion is going is important, and that there would be a case for a Crat to convene a cratchat for an RFA that was below the discretionary zone, but clearly heading in that direction. However I'm not seeing this rally as being strong enough to justify both a cratchat and eventually a controversial pass. So even though I was in the Support column, I think this was a sensible call by DQ, and hope that the candidate comes back early next year for a less contentious RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Opinion by a supporter) As far as I can tell, we've never determined that crat chats are mandatory for every contested/marginal RfA, although there has been discussion in the past on the topic (e.g Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 34#Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Brianhe). And if we did neither Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship say anything to that effect. Now I'd probably have put in a closing statement had I been the closing bureaucrat but it's not really an unreasonable conclusion that that RfA had no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• From what I have seen before, some bureaucrats would put the closure on hold before writing a detailed closing rationale in a contentious RfA. This is what should have been done here, as even though the closure was within discretionary call, the sensible move (given there is a controversial precedent not so long ago) would have been to provide a detailed rationale on how the community consensus was assessed and weighed by the closing bureaucrat prior to closing the RfA, not afterwards after being challenged by several editors. This would have saved everyone time and stress. Whether or not ‘crat chat was necessary is not precisely the main point here I think, but I think the concern should be on whether or not a bureaucrat should be closing contentious RfAs with absolutely no rationale; if that was the mindset, then we probably should be talking about that. Alex Shih (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's pretty clear that this RfA ended in no consensus to promote. If we're now talking about bureaucrats consigning a large number of opposes to the shredder just because they disagree with them, why not just have bureaucrats decide the outcome without even having an RfA? That, at least, would prevent RfA participants from getting the mistaken impression that their views count for anything. I opposed this RfA, but not for CoI reasons-- I don't actually agree with those particular opposes but do recognise that it's a view someone can legitimately hold. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  The community clearly decided, in a recent RFC, that RFAs are WP:NOTAVOTE. That means that opposes should in some cases be given less weight, not because the crats "disagree with them" but where, as with any other on-wiki discussion, it's deemed that the !votes are based on a dubious reading of policy. Now in this case it seems like the policy on gnomish edits to pages where one has a COI is not well-defined, and we should probably have an RFC to decide that - if only so that the matter is put to bed before Greenman's next run at RFA... but you're wrong to say that crats should never give some !votes less weight than others.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Look, we're not talking about troll opposes here. If the opposes in question were, "prima facie power hunger" or "we have too many admins" or "this candidate has edited articles I find uninteresting" then I would agree with you. What we're talking about here is pre-empting the result of that CoI discussion you mentioned. I don't think the crats have that much discretion to toss RfA !votes out. Reyk _YO! 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• As a (no extra bits) supporter at the RFA, I want to endorse DQ's close, and emit a pained shriek of exasperation at this community's increasing tendency to back seat drive and criticize the decisions of those we have chosen to make decisions with discretion (crats for consensus determination, arbcom for solving intractable conduct issues). And while certainly many of those criticisms taken individually are well-intentioned and without bad faith, there are some that are most definitely bad faith (one loud, vocal case above), and the combined effect is one of community bad faith towards decisionmakers, and deleterious on both those who we want to make the decisions, as well as on run-of-the-mill users who hesitate to become full-fledged members of such a fractious community.

As far as this RFA: there were strongly held opinions on both sides, generally (not 100%) discussed sensibly. The COI issue did appear to generate a shift to oppose at first (with <50% cumulative S:O part way through), and then somewhat fade away as many people felt it was less serious. But not all, and in the last few days, new !votes were S:O only about 2:1, with significant if minority opposition continuing due to both this issue and numerous others. I write this since it is very hard to see under what theory anyone could have found consensus to promote, except by discounting an issue and all opposes related to it altogether.

Finally, bureaucrat chats are optional, when bureaucrats feel the opinions of their peers are helpful to divine consensus. They are not there to presyndicate possibly contentious or potentially unpopular decisions or provide some sort of "united front" to a divided community. DQ was acting well within her discretion to decide a crat chat was not necessary in this instance. She has responded sensibly to questions; perhaps she could have hewed closer to tradition in presenting her rationale immediately while closing in the RFA close statement, but that is neither here nor there, and the argument can be made that the numbers themselves presented the rationale, with merely an implied statement that while the RFA was somewhat contentious, there was nothing special enough about it to warrant extensive discussion beyond the recognition that there was an absence of consensus to promote. Martinp (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Opinion by a supporter) I don't think DQ did anything wrong at all. I'd still support a crat chat because the numbers were trending upward and there were multiple opposes that might have been given less weight if crats had assessed them. It's quite possible that in the end, those wouldn't be enough to swing it to consensus for support, but it would probably be useful for the community to see the assessment. --valereee (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Opinion by am opposer) - Tbh I endorse DQs closure which I believe was correct - There was no consensus to promote, and Extending the RFA for one would mean they'd have to be extended for others which shouldn't happen. –Davey2010^Talk 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Can I just point out a major flaw in the “movement” argument: it was well below the discretionary range for a while, so people just stopped commenting oppose so as to not be jerks. This happens when RfAs are significantly in the “not passing” range. I think the volume of votes (intentionally leaving the ! off) is significant here, as it’s one of the lowest number of supports in years. You’d have to go pre-watchlist notice to find an RdA passing with 104 supports, and bares out the theory that people kinda just ignored this because it was in the red.
  All that to say: a crat chat below the discretionary range has to be an extraordinary event, and I don’t see that here. Just because some people don’t like some oppose rationales doesn’t mean a crat should have a discussion over whether or not to ignore them. DQ closed this correctly, and I was still a supporter at the end. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  It’s not that people “don’t like some opposes”, it’s that most of those opposes remained completely unsubstantiated even when asked to do so. –xeno^talk 13:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I stand by my wording: you don’t like the opposes, so you want to discount them. You’re a crat, so the community says you have the right to do that, but the idea of “policy based arguments” and the like in an RfA is a bad argument used when people don’t like consensus. People only argue “not a vote” when they’re on the losing side, both in RfAs and any other discussion. The outcome here was so obvious that any crat who closed it otherwise would have been transparently putting their view of what should have happened over the view of the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I never said to discount them. I felt they needed to be given due consideration and appropriately weighted according to whether they have an evidentiary basis and grounding in the actual policy as it exists. DeltaQuad says they did that, and I’m willing to accept that, while still being of the belief that the community would have been better served by this going to a bureaucrat discussion. Also I’ve never said that this RfA should have been closed as successful or “taken a side”, simply that it should have been given^{would have benefited from} a more rigorous examination by multiple parties, for several reasons including to avoid the appearance of impropriety. There is no guarantee that I would have found for consensus if it went to a bureaucrat discussion. You seem to be of the mind that it’s a straight up vote (misapplication of policy be damned), the community has already confirmed that it’s not. –xeno^talk 14:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC) ^{Correct rushed wording choice, with apologies to DQ. –xenotalk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)}

  A crat chat in these circumstances would be a bureaucrat saying they know more than the rest of the community and that they think crats should consider disregarding votes because they don’t like that a substantial portion of the community has a different interpretation of policies and guidelines than they do. It would have been inappropriate to say the least. Not a vote has never meant that closers get to pick which policy interpretation they think is right, which is what you’re arguing. If this was one or two people arguing a crazy interpretation that would be one thing, but it wasn’t. This was a substantial body saying they viewed guidelines differently than you. In any discussion, a closer who wishes to throw those votes out should just vote rather than close. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I’m of the belief that a substantial amount of those claiming a violation of the COI policy didn’t actually look at the candidate’s edits to the article in question. This was borne out by the fact that no one, even when asked, could point to a single edit that actually violated the COI policy. –xeno^talk 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I respect that, and actually agree with it to some degree. The correct place for you to raise those concerns is as a participant in the RfA, not as a bureaucrat. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I raised it multiple times, and was met with either silence or the individual shifting their position to a different rationale. Unsubstantiated positions should be weighted accordingly, this is enmeshed in the consensus process. –xeno^talk 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  That makes the argument against a crat chat stronger: people raised it, and most opposers weren’t convinced to change. You have one reading of the guideline and others think it’s much stronger than you. That’s a fair disagreement, but it’s a good faith disagreement on how strictly a policy should be enforced. Crats have no business deciding who is right in those circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  It’s not about being “right” or “wrong”; even with the “strict” application, one should still back up their position with actual evidence, else the argument remains weak. –xeno^talk 14:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I view it differently, and don’t think we’re going to agree. Thank you for engaging, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I'm surprised to see this argument coming from you of all people, Tony. You yourself were victim of one of the worst aspersions pile-ons I've ever seen when you requested CU/OS permissions, and despite the notable level of opposition, Arbcom very pointedly ignored all of it in appointing you anyway. That's because the accusations were unsubstantiated. Due weight was given to the opposition. From my perspective, this RfA was no different than that. There was a serious allegation, resulting in a pile-on of opposition, but despite strenuous efforts to find anything substantiating the allegations, nothing was found. I find it hard to believe that you think such opposes should just be taken at face value. Any random non-admin closer would be expected to recognize and acknowledge these situations when they encounter them, it's an important part of our consensus-based system that sets it apart from mere mob rule. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Swarm, I don’t think my argument is that aspersions should count. It’s that people can read the same series of events in a different way, and that generally we should give deference to people in how they read things. For some, the editing of an article without disclosing a COI is an issue, even if the content itself isn’t harmful. Others don’t view it as such, and I think that is a legitimate disagreement where two people can view the same edits differently and come to different conclusions, all in good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have no problem with the opposers who had a problem that he didn't disclose a financial COI as he was technically required to, that's a valid reason. However the bulk of opposition was not for that, but for vague allegations of "COI editing" following Lourdes's first oppose. These opposers did not articulate that they were concerned with that minor aspect of WP:PAID (that an editor must disclose being an employee of an article subject). They simply opposed per "COI concerns", and could not articulate further when asked. There was no evidence that the edits were actually biased, in violation of COI policy, or any sort of existence of a real COI. Just the pure technicality that the editor has a COI automatically (because they have a job). Usually you can't even accuse someone of having a COI without evidence, even though we all have them. But the fact that this particular COI has to be disclosed, which the editor complied with, resulted in a pile-on of vague accusations of wrongdoing where none (apparently) exist. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: There is evidence. The fact that opposers' understanding of where the line is drawn for financial COI edits doesn't match your very specific interpretation of the guideline is not a reason to discard our opinion. Nor are we obligated to answer all your questions for our votes to count. Really, this is a very worrying mindset for a crat. – Joe (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I’m not sure where I wrote any vote would be discarded. However if I can’t be sure that the participant had done an actual review of the candidates edits, then my concern is that people are piling on without adequate diligence. All they were asked to do was point out the edits they found problematic. If they pointed out some of those incredibly boring version edits, then I’d say “okay, they feel the COI policy prohibits those edits” and take it at face value. All I’m looking for is for evidence to be presented; I understand your feeling is ^{some feel} that evidence is not always important to be presented to the body public - I don’t feel that way. –xeno^talk 17:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)^{02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)}

  I understand your feeling is that evidence is not always important Excuse me, this is completely misrepresenting what I said. I hope you'll find that my RfA votes are always substantiated, perhaps more so than average. In this case, Lourdes presented diffs. As far as I'm aware the facts of the COI wasn't disputed by anyone. The question was its significance – a legitimate point of disagreement. Again, neither I nor anyone else is obligated to reiterate our point until you are personally satisfied that we are not "piling on". Absence evidence to the contrary, that should be taken on good faith.

  While you have your crat hat on, this attitude of dismissing arguments because you find them flawed has echoes of the RexxS fiasco and strikes me as a slippery slope. Yes, RfA votes should have some basis, but ultimately the process is asking us for an opinion about a candidate's suitability. Expecting an exhaustive factual dossier is unreasonable. Probably if someone tried it they would (rightly) come across as hypercritical. There's also the question of how evenly this scrutiny is applied. In this case, it's an oppose argument you obviously strongly disagreement with personally. What about opposes for more run-of-the-mill reasons, "not enough AIV reports", etc.? Or the supports? Rarely do we see anyone badgered to substantiate exactly why they think someone is "not a jerk, has a clue". – Joe (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: I'm not dismissing any arguments, though I do think we have a different approach to bureaucratship. It's not simply straight up-and-down vote counting on any opinion whatsoever (cf.). Rational arguments backed with evidence will always carry more weight. You'll note in my bureaucrat discussion history that I have also down-weighted 'bare supports', and in the immediate discussion you can see me asking supporters to substantiate their position as well. As we see below, there were no diffs provided. Not that it matters, but my "from the hip" estimation is that I would have also had difficulty finding consensus given that most of the COI-based opposes were down to the failure to disclose onwiki rather than controversial COI edits per se, but that's just a guess - I did not have the opportunity to do a deep dive, and that's okay. I'm allowed to have a different opinion on the best closure path for an RfA, that doesn't mean DQ was wrong.

  Please note I did find above an unintended wording choice that I have amended with this edit. My apologies to DeltaQuad for the rushed edit there: I blame the tryptophan - Happy Thanksgiving! –xeno^talk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  ← Joe Roe: could you show me where the diffs were presented? I must have missed it. –xeno^talk 18:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  [3]. – Joe (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe that diff is an edit to their user page that appears to enhance the candidate’s compliance with policy. Were there any article diffs presented? –xeno^talk,

  The article linked by Lourdes in the same question contain numerous edits by Greenman in their immediate history. Again, nobody in the RfA disputed that Greenman had edited subjects he had a financial COI with, the issue was only whether they crossed the line. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  So we’re in agreement that no diffs were presented? Okay. –xeno^talk 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Except the diff in the diff that I just linked. Are you calling me out for using the plural here, or...? – Joe (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: what I meant is that we're in agreement that no specific mainspace diffs of concern were presented. You've linked me to a diff that shows an edit to a user page. –xeno^talk 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's worrying to see an Arbitrator defend aspersions and condescend those speaking out against them. That's what's worrying. Being able to differentiate between evidence-based commentary and aspersions is a very basic expectation for anyone tasked with assessing consensus, so it's unsurprising a crat would be concerned with an apparent failure to do so. There is not evidence, that's the whole point. Looking at the RfA itself, people who claimed to have actually reviewed the edits in question said they found nothing controversial, while COI opposers were repeatedly asked to demonstrate otherwise and none could. Not a single diff was produced. This isn't about esoteric interpretation of policy. Being an employee is inherently classified as a financial COI. That's something we all have. The policy is very simple in only allowing uncontentious edits where a financial COI exists. In other words, in terms of our own standards, no one could actually demonstrate that there was a problem, and yet everyone was claiming there was. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  These points were all raised and responded to at the RfA by Lourdes and others (and on my talk page, to put some context into why I'm "defending" the "aspersioners" here). If someone doesn't explicitly say "yes I've read this latest round of oppose-badgering and no I haven't changed my mind" it doesn't necessarily mean their opinion is fact-free. – Joe (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any responses by you, Lourdes, or anyone else that even tries to substantiate the allegation of what Lourdes described as "COI editing". In fact, per your own words, you were not opposing because there was any actual problem, you were opposing because of the mere existence of a "financial COI". In this case, the "financial COI" was merely the editor having a job. Having an automatic COI just because you have a job is not actually any sort of violation of policy, thus it's not a valid reason to oppose a candidate by our own standards. There's literally nothing wrong with it, by our own standards. If you arbitrarily decide in your mind that that's a problem, that's fine, but it's not policy based, and weight of arguments is literally judged relative to how policy-based they are. Being an employee and thus having an inherent "financial COI" is obviously not the same as being a "paid editor". You said, basically, "we don't know that they're not a paid editor", which is the same thing as saying "they might be a paid editor", which, without evidence, is an aspersion. You cast aspersions, failed to prove any non-compliance with policy, and then have the audacity to belittle a highly experienced crat who questions how your and other opposes were weighted. That's just wrong on so many levels. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Having a job + regularly editing your employer's article. You're missing a key part of the equation. Nobody wants to read an encyclopaedia article maintained by its subject. If there's one thing I've taken from this RfA, it's that a shocking number of otherwise experienced admins apparently haven't read the COI policy. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia... COI editors should not edit affected articles directly. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  ← Speak for yourself. I’d rather an article be kept factually up to date by an employee of the company editing of their own volition than an out of date article. You understand the word “discouraged” has a meaning, right? It does not say “prohibited”. The policy goes on to say that COI editors may make uncontroversial edits. So the onus would be upon those indicating they felt the editor made controversial edits to actually provide differential evidence of same. –xeno^talk 21:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe, as a developer, I think the edits ought to be uncontroversial. The version history of a database is impossible to represent in a non-neutral way. However, I think version history updates aren't one of the six types of edits listed at WP:COIU, so I would interpret that section to say that the edits should have been on the talk page instead. On the other hand, IAR, I guess? Any one of us would've made the same edits in the same way. I think the only reason they're controversial is that Greenman made them.

  Which makes me ask this: when we judge if an edit is controversial (in the context of COIU), do we also consider the identity of the person who would make it? "Yes" results in a more expansive definition, and I think it's one of the points of disagreement here. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it isn't in the list. There's also the fact that editors with a financial COI are specifically excluded from WP:COIU. Or consider the scenario where a few people go inactive and version numbers go stale across database articles. Except for MariaDB, which has an employee diligently keeping them updated – the same employee that writes the release notes he cites in those edits. Now readers get the impression that MariaDB is more up-to-date than its competitors. I'm not saying this is likely to happen, but it shows why uncontroversial should be narrowly understood in the context of COI editing. – Joe (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe: I think we can agree that there are substantial disagreements as to how the COI policy should apply in this circumstance - just as you are questioning my interpretation, I am questioning your interpretation. That being said, it's not really a topic for BN and we should probably pick it up at WT:COI. I've more to say on it and significantly disagree with your position (e.g. COIU is a permissive, not a prohibitive section), but again - wrong venue. –xeno^talk 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I did not partcipate in the RfA.

1) On keeping the RfA open: There is no consensus standard for that, so it is left to the discretion of Amanda.

2) On holding Crat Chat: there is no consensus standard for that, so it is left to the discretion of Amanda; what's not left to the discretion of Amanda is the discretionary range itself.

3) On COI, I think any argument that the candidate was WP:PAID must be rejected as without known foundation in fact. But and nonetheless, current WP:COI guideline does counsel that interest disclosure "should" (WP:DISCLOSE) be made at the time of the edits, for any type of edits to the affected article. I have not gone back to see what the COI guideline was when Greenman started doing the editing, and I take it he thinks he did sufficiently disclose and only did noming edits, but even so, that seems too much for crats to dismiss concern completely (eg. why was explicit user page disclosure only done in 2019?). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support DQ's close, would have supported a crat chat too, agree totally with Tony, and would also like to add that the said edits were not PAID; however, if any edit (yes, any edit) by a CoI editor is challenged by anyone, however trivial the edit may be, it is taken to be a controversial edit – and this is as per current guidelines ("If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit."). And in this case, as Tony says, it's not a handful of such editors – so to simply wish away the opposes, however unreasonable you may believe they are, would be a supervote. Lourdes 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• In 2015 the community expanded the RfA discretionary range to 65–75%. The admin policy sets the expectation that almost all RfAs below 65% support will fail. This RfA was at ~61% during the closing. To even get it up to the lowest level of the discretionary range 10 opposition !votes would have needed to be completely discarded. If given more time, 19 more support votes without any more oppose votes would have been needed to even get it up to 65%. "Crat Chats" are never mandatory, and restarting or extended an RfA is a very exceptional measure that would need some very exceptional reason presented (this is more of a safety valve condition). I don't see that such an exceptional situation was in place for this discussion. As an aside, I'd like to draw attention to the ire we receive when RfA's are not promptly closed (e.g. this one from last year). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Noting for completeness, at the same time the community expanded discretion, the community explicitly rejected expanding discretion down to 60%.[4] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  (Opinion by an supporter) 10 opposition !votes would have needed to be completely discarded ... true, but I count more than 10 !votes based entirely on the aspersion of PAID editing (not COI, but PAID). After discarding the PAID aspersion !votes, it's well into discretionary range. – Levivich 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Opinion by an opposer) This was a good close. Don't forget to discard or discount the seven or so "moral supports" in any calculus, which pushes the !vote results even lower below the discretionary range. Many valid issues beyond COI were expressed in the oppose column. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, that there are votes of different weights on both sides. I guess I would have liked a crat chat to discuss those, or barring that, a detailed closing rationale. One of the benefits is that it'll educate RfA voters about how their votes are interpreted by closing crats. (One of the reasons I like crat chats is that you get the opinion of multiple crats instead of just one.) – Levivich 17:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DQ has now posted a detailed closing rationale. I'm not seeing the issue here. There's no argument to be made by any stretch that a consensus to promote exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• DeltaQuad ought to have posted a more detailed rationale, but that's about all she did wrong; I don't see any reasonable weighting that would push this deep into the discretionary range. There are throwaway !votes in both sections. RFA is a consensus-building exercise, yes. Opposition and support needs to be weighted, yes. That doesn't imply all the !votes you don't like can be thrown out; the question is only whether the !voter has provided (or identified) policy-based evidence for their opinion, not whether that opinion is valid. Furthermore; any attempt to extend the RFA, or to incorporate temporal trends in support into evaluating the outcome, would be moving into extremely dangerous territory. RFA is already a difficult environment. We shouldn't make it worse by giving editors a reason to tactically delay !voting (do folks realize this would encourage everyone to !vote at the last possible minute? Or worse, to !vote one way, and then switch at the last possible minute?). Nor should we extend the duration of what candidates have to endure; close RFAs are already difficult enough for candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think closing this directly and without the extra couple days suspense of a crat chat was the right call. While I supported the candidate, I agree there was nothing close to a consensus to promote, and the well-attended oppose section had several valid points. Crat chats shouldn't be used if the outcome is clear. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• (Note: I supported) As Vanamonde93 has so cogently explained above, sticking to bureaucratic procedures is a good thing because it brings certainty into a process and makes it harder to game the system. Still, something good has probably come from the pushback against this close - hopefully we'll see more rationales posted along with RfA closes when the close is somewhere within "crat chat" range. Though I !voted support, I don't see how this could have passed, but a nice summary of positive and negative comments is useful for the candidate if they plan to go through the process again at a later date. --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, what is crat chat territory? Crat chats are "used only as a last resort mechanism", though the current resysop RfC might change that. Crat chats are distinct from the crat discretionary zone, which any individual crat could close but normally (perhaps always since the RfC that changed the zone) goes to a crat chat. In this case this was BELOW the discretionary zone which doesn't mean it's impossible to end up passing (see RexxS) but suggests it would be truly extraordinary. I see no policy basis that suggests that between 60-80 (as presumably some range above the discretionary zone would also call for one) needs a crat chat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  I was going to add a "whatever that means" to the "crat chat range" and should have done so. I meant, whatever looks like, fuzzily speaking, might need a crat chat rather than the discretionary range since we don't have a well defined rule for when a crat chat is required. Not that I'm saying this one needed a crat chat (I, unequivocally, don't think it did), but there were enough comments indicating that some editors thought so and therefore a closing rationale would have been a good idea. Ideally, of course, every good faith RfA deserves a closing summary of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just for greater certainty, now that DQ has posted a detailed closing rationale, I support their closure (though not necessarily ‘endorse’, as I’ve commented to DQ directly). –xeno^talk 19:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Xeno, despite this I have to tell you that your actions here are why I am have become more skeptical of individual crat action (as opposed to crats reaching good decisions as a group). I can find nothing that Amanda did that fell outside of policy and, as I noted above, crat chats are supposed to be "used only as a last resort" according to our information page. Yet rather than just noting that you think a detailed close was called for "only" on her talk page, you choose to call into question Amanda's actions and the strength of oppose editors (voters) statements. I want a bureaucrats that act conservatively in their application of policy not attempting to contort policy because they disagree with people's opinions or to otherwise achieve a "desired" outcome. I try to be very respectful of when people have to make decisions and think that the legitimacy of all crats was slightly undermined here and that is, on the whole, something I think makes the project worse off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I wouldn’t have gone it alone here anyway. Not sure how it’s “contorting policy” to ask or expect editors to substantiate the claims that another editor has violated policy (it’s considered casting aspersions to accuse someone of violating a policy without evidence). Also: I had no ‘desired’ outcome but for the candidate to receive a fair and measured result with a detailed rationale for their benefit, which has now happened. –xeno^talk 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Contort policy is perhaps too strong for saying on Amanda's page, in what appears to be an official capacity that, "I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion." because, as you posted here, "It’s not a hard cutoff". This second sentence is true. Also true is that CRATCHATs are not demanded for any closing let alone one that falls outside the discretionary range. So I reaffirm that your actions were not the conservative use of policy that I would hope individual crats would engage in and serve to collectively harm rather than help crats as a group, but will also acknowledge that contorting policy goes too far in the opposite direction in characterizing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you’ve completely lost me. I offered my opinion as requested by another user while confirming that DQ’s close was within policy. Feel free to drop by my talk page and we can hash it out further. –xeno^talk 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I continued the discussion at Xeno's talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (in response to Special:Diff/921122300): I think there has been a miscommunication - ^{except for the unintended word choice corrected in this edit} I don't believe I ever said DQ was wrong in their closing, or that a bureaucrat discussion was required (and I say both of those things in the edit you've cited). I am allowed to have a different opinion as to the appropriate closure path for any given RfA than any given colleague. DQ was able to divine the consensus without going to a bureaucrat discussion while I was not so sure that having one bureaucrat "go it alone" was the best course here. That doesn't mean DQ's decision to close without sending it to a discussion was wrong or against bureaucrat procedure, but I was curious if they had considered doing so. Bureaucrats are "expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request" (WP:BUR). My opening question to them was mainly to seek such an explanation about their consideration of closure paths and tease out DQ's summation of what I perceived to be the major turning point of the RfA, since it did not have the benefit from a wider examination on the merits. I was a bit surprised that a closing rationale had not been provided, and I think in future DQ will probably take the time to include one on knife's edge RfX's which is a positive. Personally, although I often engage as a bureaucrat during the RfA, I don't seek to divine the consensus on a potentially contentious RfA until after the timer expires - it appears the DQ's approach is different - but entirely reasonable and justified if they were following the discussion edit-by-edit and had already taken the appropriate steps to determine consensus. If I had decided I was able to close this RfA on my own, my approach would have been to put the 'on hold' wrapper on it while I went back over the entire discussion de novo (to mitigate potential bias) and composed a detailed rationale. DQ is a relatively new bureaucrat, and my goal was to gain an understanding of their thought processes both in approach and in the consensus evaluation, and I'm satisfied with DQ's approach and response following the addition of the detailed rationale even if I would have not personally taken the same approach, as reasonable minds can differ on this and DQ clearly felt more confident going it alone than I did. Bureaucrat discussions are never required if the closing bureaucrat feels they can determine the consensus without convening a bureaucrat discussion. I do consider it a best practice to include a detailed closing rationale both for the benefit of the participants and the candidate.

DeltaQuad did nothing wrong. Hopefully this helps clear things up. Feel free to follow up for further clarification. –xeno^talk 02:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just throwing in my two cents here: This was an interesting case of an RFA zigging and zagging, but the reasons why are almost certainly as follows:

• lots of support at first as candidate seems pretty great
• then the COI thing comes up and a number of users find it compelling, RFA swings hard into negative territory
• Outcome seems obvious, so users decide to invoke the "mercy rule" and not pile on, while others add "moral support" which basically means "I think you could pass at some point but not right now."
• For whatever reason the RFA rallies back in the other direction right at the end, but it isn't enough to put it in the discretionary range

Add all of that up and I also think it's pretty clear what the consensus was. I'm sure DQ will be more thoughtful about adding a detailed rationale in the future, but there isn't a real case to be made for a crat chat or any sort of special treatment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have never observed this "mercy rule" phenomenon people are speaking of, nor have I ever heard it described before. RfA is a dynamic discussion, and the way it trends is directly influenced by the points being made in the discussion. These trends are always directly influenced by thoughtful, logical endorsements or opposes. They don't play out arbitrarily or randomly. An RfA that tanks suddenly is indicative of a pile on, which is something that happens when a very serious issue is discovered (not the case here), or when someone makes an appeal to fear and causes a panic. We see these hysteria episodes often when BLP, copyright, and, you guessed it, paid or COI editing is invoked. An RfA that tanks suddenly and then continues trending upward is indicative of such an episode which was stopped. Those who were piling on could not actually explain why they were piling on. People scrutinized the allegations and found nothing of note. People saw that play out, and stopped piling on. Cooler heads prevailed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I for one absolutely have refrained from putting an oppose in for a nomination that I knew wasn't going to succeed. Reyk _YO! 20:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I feel like we used hear it called the mercy rule more often maybe 10-2 years ago, and it was also used as a reason to close RFAs and other discussions early, but now NOTNOW or SNOW are used instead. It might've helped if it were written down, but as far as I can tell it never was. I also would like to point out that a significant number of opposers had additional reason besides the apparent COI, or like myself had entirely different reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• DQ did nothing wrong. I concur with Martinp's assessment above. GAB^gab 20:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sadly I have to support the close: but like Swarm, I believe the piling on was ridiculous. Also despite all efforts no malfeasance was found. I hope the candidate comes back after healing their ego. I was in the support column and so I hoped for a different result, but I cannot fault DQ's close. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I switched from oppose to support during the RfA; however pretty much nobody else did. I saw the support rising during the last 24 hours of the RfA, but also the oppose rising. The conclusion I reach is that the community cannot agree on whether Greenman should be an administrator at this time, and discussion on it is divisive. Hence I endorse the close as given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: Just for the record, I support Amanda's close. While she could have called for a 'crat chat, that is never a requirement. Yes, perhaps another 'crat would have called for one, but Amanda is the one who closed it, and I see no flaw in her evaluation of the discussion. You can't please all the people all the time, especially on Wikipedia. Her decision was well within policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

break

For those hunting for the stats on the MariaDB editing:

Greenman edits to MariaDB

• here
• nearly all edits revolve around the version information (I noticed one (proper) removal of a disputed tag)

top edited pages (MariaDB is 5th)

• here

article stats

• 59.9% edits Greenman: - next highest is 8+%
• 15% by text size: (3rd highest)
• here

make of it what you will. — Ched (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

current article stats

• 2,158 characters of the current entry, or 9.4%. [5]

I presume this is because they often update version numbers, thereby deleting characters they themselves had added before. For info, adding references sends the character-count through the roof. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've only recently become aware of this handy gizmo that helps track voting patterns at RFA. May be of some interest to parties int eh above discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  (Aha, I don't have to plug it myself!) Yeah, I would say the percentage sort of looks like it was leveling off in the final 24 hours, even with the people applying the mercy rule (and thus suppressing potential opposes) as Tony was suggesting. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  ​The gizmo must be surely AI driven. It doesn't show my !vote and name. Lourdes 05:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Lourdes, if I had to guess I would say it is because you put your timestamp inside of your signature, which likely throws off the bot. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yup, I expect that markup will cause lots of problem for bot time-scraping. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

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

I am requesting my admin rights back. I requested they be removed in June 2019. ~ GB fan 12:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Everything seems to be in order here, standard self-requested removal ~4 months ago, last admin actions ~4 months ago. There is a standard 24-hour hold on restoration requests to allow for commentary. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Done, welcome back. –xeno^talk 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you ~ GB fan 13:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Request return of admin rights (GB fan) (discussion)

• Of course, there were other, non-admin actions since then, were there not? This episode, for instance, where GB fan edited logged out in order to make a point, and was advised aganst it by both Iridescent and Bonadea. ——SerialNumber54129 13:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't log out to make a point. I was logged out and made an edit and then was reverted without comment. I then logged back in to ask a question if it would have been reverted without comment if I had done the edit logged in but never got an answer. ~ GB fan 13:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  SN or GB fan: Could you point me to the ANI thread mentioned at the TH discussion? Thank you, –xeno^talk 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC) I see it was a hypothetical thread, I misread. –xeno^talk 14:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  As far as I know there was never any ANI thread. ~ GB fan 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed: you made this edit logged out, no problem whatsoever. But you then made [6][7] to make a point, and in the knowledge that you were logged out to do so. You were advised by Iridescent not to do so. You then filed at the Teahouse where, not only did no one agree with you, but you were informed by an independent editor that you had become a "pest". Yes, your attempts at gaslighting (by continually repeating the mantra of whether you would have been reverted, etc) have been noted, but your persistent refusal to acknowledge that you did anything wrong or that your behaviour was in any way problematic leaves much to be desired in a so-called administrator. Even one that is logged out. ——SerialNumber54129 13:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: If you mean this reference to ANI, I hadn't filed, I was answering GB fan's question what would you have done if I had logged into my account and made the same edit (i.e., that if he'd edit-warren at JW's talk like that logged-in, that was what would have happened), although only hypothetically. Incidentally, it indicates that although GBf is even now claiming that this never got an answer to that question...he clearly did. Gaslighting or disingenuity, the difference may not be that relevenat by now I'm afraid. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  I found that to be an interesting exercise in WP:BITE, and the avoidance of answering GB's actual question (if he had made that initial edit with his logged in account, would you still have misused rollback to revert it without an explanation?) while throwing around terms such as "gaslighting" and "disingenuity" also interesting. Fish+Karate 14:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Rollback was neither used nor abused, and and I have pointed out above, I did answer his question. I find your agreeability with such behaviour being becoming an admin equally interesting. ——SerialNumber54129 14:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Rollback, undo, semantics. Where did I say, or even imply, such behaviour was becoming of an admin? Fish+Karate 14:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  So you don't condone logged-out edit warring? Excellent news. As I have said, the issue was not with the first logged out edit: it was the subsequent reversion against multiple advice. ——SerialNumber54129 14:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  So where did you answer the question "would you have reverted the original edit without explanation if I had done it with my logged in account?" I have never seen an aswer to that specific question. ~ GB fan 14:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, I have never gotten an answer if you would have reverted my original edit without an explanation if I had done it originally from this account rather than origanlly logged out. I didn't originally ask my question in the right way and got an answer that wasn't really about what I was really asking.I still believe the edit is helpful but I wouldn't do it again because I have gotten explanations. I was never making any point other than trying to get you to explain why you were reverting the edit. I wasn't in the right and neither were you. We were both obstinate about it. ~ GB fan 14:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  If you had admitted that at the time, GB fan, so doubtless would I! ——SerialNumber54129 14:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

- Regardless of the "tit-for-tat" discussion, I'd be surprised if any crats found any "weather" to be considered in the request. — Ched (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to write a similar thing. Serial Number 54129, I don't see anything here that you have brought up that would preclude a resysop. Everyone does dumb things from time to time, and while I haven't done the most thorough look, there does not appear anything that would approach anything sanctionable. At this point, frankly it looks like you had a dispute a few months ago and you're using a thread here as an excuse to throw some mud. Maxim_(talk) 14:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the aspersions Maxim, thank you. This is precisely the point at which such issues need to be discussed, and I am ambivalent as to consequence. As far as I am concerned, GB fan having now admitted that he was both obstinate and (quote) "not in the right" (i.e., wrong) is a satisfactory conclusion, as we can consider him to have adjusted his behaviour accordingly. I never considered it egregious enough to demand his head for—and indeed, who has?—but to suggest that, ergo, it should not be mentioned at all is foolishness, to say the least. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's not egregious enough to demand his head, why pick up the stick in the first place? The purpose of a thread like this is to determine if there is something that should preclude an automatic resysop. And by admitting that you "never considered it egregious enough to demand his head", you're reinforcing my comment that it appears you are throwing mud. Maxim_(talk) 14:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't; others might. Perhaps you would deny the possibility of discussion. Please do not oversimplify my remarks, or otherwise misquote me, which I will assume was accidental. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request return of admin rights (general discussion regarding scope of consideration)

Maxim, I think it's a reasonable concern to raise. Undisclosed alternate accounts are not to be used in internal project space discussions. If it's an isolated incident, then it might not preclude restoration but to suggest it not be raised for consideration? Inviting comments as to the suitability of the request is the main reason for the hold period. –xeno^talk 15:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, to me the purpose of such a thread is to help bureaucrats determine whether there is a reason to preclude resysoping. We're not here to do RfA-lite. I don't find the thread particularly helpful, especially as the original comments suggested a much bigger issue than there really is/was. I get the angle of mentioning something just in case, but in all honesty, nearly everything past 13:16 UTC today here makes everyone look bad, myself included... Maxim_(talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From a strict reading of WP:RESYSOP, it doesn't seem to me that even if a former admin's edits (post de-sysop) would result in sanctions of some kind, that that would be relevant in restoring the admin's bit. That is to say, if an admin doesn't "resign under a cloud" but instead "resigns and later creates a cloud" that former admin would still be eligible for re-sysop (barring lengthy activity and compromised accounts, of course). Item number four of WP:RESYSOP notes the 24-hour period for checking/discussing, but my interpretation of that has been that it was for checking/discussing if a cloud existed at the time of resignation. Do other bureaucrats have the same interpretation? Useight (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So hypothetically, an administrator hands in their tools, and behaves poorly on a wide scale (but doesn’t get Arbcom or community restricted from resysop), they could successfully request restoration? [A commenter might not know the whole scale, do we want to discourage commenters?] –xeno^talk 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That was my interpretation, yes. That, for example, technically speaking, that even if the former administrator (who resigned without a cloud) went around vandalizing, 3RR, or whatever, and got blocked for 24 hours, this former administrator would still be qualified to get the tools back upon request (as long as we could confirm that the account wasn't compromised and there was no lengthy inactivity). Common sense would suggest IAR depending on the egregiousness of the former administrator's behavior, but I don't like to IAR in my bureaucrat position, and my understanding is that there isn't supposed to be a subjective line like "behaved too poorly to qualify for resysop" within the scope of the bureaucrats. I was asking if other bureaucrats interpreted the existing mandate for resysop the same - behavior post-desysop is not to be considered within the scope of "under a cloud." Useight (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In such a case, extending the hold period and seeking clarification from the committee would be prudent. –xeno^talk 16:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The episode occurred after the resignation of admin flag. This means that the resignation was not in any way under a cloud, and the restoration of the flag is the only option. The crats are not elected to reject the flag restoration except for a situation when the candidate resigned under a cloud, or if the candidate lost a flag for inactivity and fails the criteria. After the flag restoration, if someone wants, they can open an ANI discussion, and, if the conclusion of the discussion is that the behavior of the administrator is unbecoming, file an ArbCom request.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There is another option, which would be asking arbitration for a temporary injunction which has been done before. But I didn’t suggest at any point that restoration should not proceed. Merely that the concern itself is not outside the realm of consideration. –xeno^talk 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• A discussion about whether someone's behavior after resignation of the tools could lead to a refusal to resysop would be interesting and useful, but perhaps it should occur elsewhere? I don't think there's anyone who actually thinks it applies to GB fan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Added section break, thank you. –xeno^talk 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with GB fan, but I'm really dismayed at the discouragement people bringing up concerns here gets. SN brought up a concern, I assume because they wanted to make sure there weren't a dozen such concerns out there that others had been reluctant to bring up because of the probable pushback on their right to do so. If someone has a concern about the possible appropriateness of resysopping, we should be thanking them for bringing that concern up, even if ultimately we decide it's not a barrier to resysopping, not scolding them for bringing it up. --valereee (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  To discourage bringing concerns forward seems dangerous, as even what may seem like a minor issue may reveal wider-reaching issues that would require attention of another body (no one is suggesting bureaucrats should act as arbitrators). –xeno^talk 13:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Valereee, perhaps I'm wrong on my approach to these threads. If memory serves me right, I don't really reply much to them in general, but lately I've voiced my concern that we're turning them into RfA-lite and I think the threads should be more on-focus, perhaps with respect to red-line issues barring desysop. (In fact I would err on the side of resysop if it's not clear because 'crats aren't ArbCom.) My intent was not one of discouragement, and I apologize to you and Serial Number 54129 as it seems readily apparent now that I came off as very discouraging. Maxim_(talk) 21:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Maxim, scolding was probably too strong a word, and I apologize, too. I appreciate your willingness to consider other opinions. --valereee (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Time for everyone to clam up about this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

---

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

I'm ready to pick up the mop again, subject to the usual 24 hour wait. There's no clouds on my horizon that I'm aware of. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting for the record that this has been seen. Last admin action in June, desysop was in July so no inactivity issues. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC) updated 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Here's the BN request for desysop. I agree with cloudlessness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• I recall a fell wind but nothing to do with VoC. All set for restoration. –xeno^talk 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• No clouds and no meatballs that I can see. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• By unanimous aclamation of the crats, you will soon be an admin again. --(Aardvark) Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

All these years I thought it was "Voice of Calm" duh. — Ched (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: Curious, since the username is less than two years old  :) have a good weekend all! ——SerialNumber54129 19:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 huh .. I have no idea who I'm thinking of then. I'm really stumped. Must be a senior moment. You have a good weekend too. — Ched (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I was Optimist on the run, but as I use that handle for other purposes it was getting confusing, so I changed it. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Always reminded me of Paul McCartney...unfortunately for me! :D ——SerialNumber54129 19:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ched, but I would guess the confusion was with User:Voice of All (now Aaron Schulz), who maintained a number of very popular monobook user scripts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And to complete the operation, they have been re-added to User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

By unanimous acclamation of the crabs, you are an admin again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You people are just being shellfish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Flexing their mussels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Better not mess up, or they'll throw you in the dungeness. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I was going to hat this silliness, but I'm too scared to stick my little neck out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

1. Akhilleus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Melchoir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. 😂 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Youngamerican (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7. MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple there I didn't realize had been away that long. :( — Ched (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

But only one there that matters...  :( ——SN54129 05:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree, they all matter Govindaharihari (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Really hope NeilN comes back :( P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. ——SN54129 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 Unfortunately I don't know the rest and I'm sure they were all great but for me Neil was a fantastic admin, Realyy hope he comes back one day :(. –Davey2010^Talk 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd no idea he'd been inactive that long Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's John Vandenberg's name that really sticks out in this list for me. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

John and Neil were the two that I was thinking of as well. — Ched (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There's been a closure of the above-linked RfC resulting in significant changes to the resysopping procedures used by bureaucrats.

These changes need to be written into the policy page at Wikipedia:Administrators before the procedure page at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats can be updated to reflect the changes.

Note I've expressed some reservations about the closure in a personal capacity, but will be continue to be guided as a bureaucrat by whatever policies achieve community consensus. –xeno^talk 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to the users who worked on these changes. –xeno^talk 23:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia:Administrators

Changes to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

I think it would be wise for the bureaucrats to come to some sort of agreement as to what "has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" means to us. UninvitedCompany 22:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this is really something that will need to be developed by a common law approach as the requests come in. I think it would be prudent to seek additional clarification from the community-at-large as to what level of (or commitment to) editorial activity may be generally considered acceptable. Certainly a significant cadre of bureaucrats are ourselves less than or minimally active. –xeno^talk 23:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As part of that significant cadre, though more active than previously, I'm wondering this, too. For example, we have discretion when closing RFAs, but only when between 65-75% (roughly). This policy has no such rough guideline, so I would expect that bureaucrats would have a wide array of what it would take for them to be "reasonably convinced that the user...intends to return to activity as an editor." I could see some bureaucrats using previous requests as a precedent (meaning the first several requests will start shaping what future requests require) while other bureaucrats could take each request as a stand-alone event. I'm not sure how this is going to play out. Useight (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I know you guys aren't used to this, and perhaps it even goes against the crat culture, but this actually means you have discretion here. You're not being asked to develop a guideline, or a procedure, or a definition, but you do have a mandate to use your subjective discretion, meaning common sense and good judgment, when it comes to resysopping. If there's any uncertainty, contention or ambiguity in this regard, the matter is preordained by the community to be resolved via crat chat. I know this is new territory, but at the end of the day it isn't rocket science. You're just now expected to use common sense rather than rubberstamping requests. Nothing's stopping anyone from further developing this concept via continuing RfCs, to make it more controlled and/or procedural. But keep in mind that this task would not have been delegated to you if your subjective judgment was not already trusted. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I drafted the language. In real life “reasonable” is a standard I use at work in a technical sense all the time, so I might be more comfortable with its usage than others, but it basically is a reasonable person standard, which is subjective but also not particularly ambiguous. It requires judgement but people are elected crats because of their ability to exercise judgement. I also agree with Xeno that it’s something best handled through a common law approach rather than objectively defining what it means before something happens. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So we're using a Reasonable wikipedian construct? Because reasonable people probably wouldn't consider much of what occurs on the project to be ... reasonable.  Bureaucrat note: I'd really like to develop a firmer idea as to the general sentiment on what is considered reasonably active to request restoration of the administration tools, especially since I'm still having trouble seeing a distinction between an administrator who is minimally active, but never got caught up in the inactivity net, versus one who did get caught up, is just as minimally active as the administrator who managed to make the 1 trivial edit per year. While I've said the common law approach will be necessary, I also don't think it's fair for the first requesting administrator to be put up against the wall when only vague direction has been given to bureaucrats. If someone has some additional links or pointers, that would be useful. –xeno^talk 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, I think that the community expects us bureaucrats to be "reasonable", and the new guidance already calls for us to have a 'crat discussion should there be doubt. Notably, this new change has nothing to do with "activity requirements" to maintain admin access which if the community wants to discuss again they should have a full RfC on. I think it is also important to note that even if we decline a request to summarily promote that a community appeal is always available as the requester can just ask at WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, you should also have the option to decline a request as "not just now" and allow the former sysop to request the bit again after a month or three of (more) active editing. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: actually that is my interpretation - getting declined at WP:BN shouldn't disqualify anyone from re-requesting later - just calling it out as another option, us 'crats are not the end of the line if the requester were to disagree with us. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Noting in passing that the WMF refers to any account with 5 or more edits in a month to be an "active" editor. I think it would be hard to rationalize an expectation that is higher than that, since no other specific description of editor activity (other than 1 edit/action per year to retain the bit) is articulated anywhere on this project. I can guarantee that, even amongst reasonable editors, the range of "activeness" that people would deem as minimally acceptable will be enormous. Simply put, people's own level of activity colours what they consider to be reasonable activity in everyone else, and the non-bureaucrats who are likely to kibbitz here tend to be much more active than the average editor. Risker (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a view that then, probably the level of activity should include even the number of times an editor logs in and opens Wikipedia pages to view. Like I said, just a view. Lourdes 04:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the merit of the idea, it's my understanding that there are no publicly available data that would confirm whether or not an account has successfully logged in and, as a non-logged activity, even if there were such records (public or not), they would probably have any identifying information removed after 3 months. Risker (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I am far from wanting the crats to adopt a strict definition of "activity", but suggesting that you can't imagine the crats holding a higher standard than 5 edits in one month is nonsensical on its face. Not to say that level can't be accepted, but it seems quite obvious, from a common sense perspective, that a somewhat higher level than 5 edits overall might be the standard for "activity". I would go as far as to say that if you think 5 edits is a reasonable definition of "active", then you probably shouldn't be an admin. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing prohibiting judgement calls using far above 5 edits per month - ongoing activity levels is a common RfA query and we wouldn't descend in rebuttal upon an oppose based on the candidate only doing 6 edits per month Nosebagbear (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you responding to me, Swarm? What's wrong with 5 edits/month? People tend to ask for their bits back after a few days of returning - often they come back because those bits are being removed. So how many edits do you want to see before we give them back? There isn't a number that is low enough not to appear punitive or high enough that it can't be gamed. What do you think the 'crats will do, take away the bits again if someone doesn't meet some arbitrary and imaginary standard that nobody else (including admins who show up and do their one edit a year) need to meet? Risker (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that the intent of implementing "crat discretion" is obviously not for them to brainlessly adopt a comically-low "definition" of activity that would in effect change nothing as long as a requester can make 5 edits. Doing so would be nothing short of outrageously undermining the proposal, and by extension stating here that you can't conceive of the crats employing a higher standard is advocating for a similarly radical and outrageous rejection of the new community standards. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I definitely do not want my logins and especially page views to be tracked, not even talking about made publicly available.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please link to crat policy changes, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Linked in this very thread, or do you mean something else?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The thresholds articulated in WP:Activity (for active editors) and Wikipedia:List of administrators#Active and Wikipedia:List of administrators#Semi-active (for administrators) would seem to be good starting points for determining what's considered reasonable. When someone's first edit after a lengthy absence is to request their tools back on this page, they have not yet recently edited enough to be considered active by any of those definitions, so that particular scenario would seem clear enough to handle: politely decline the resysop request and ask them to return once they've demonstrated some active engagement. 28bytes (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

28bytes, yes, I also think those are widely used measures for activity, even if they still look low to most "very active" editors. The scenario that people returned and asked for the admin bit back with their very first edit was probably also caused by the wording of the desysop message, which was the first thing people saw after coming back and which told them they could request the bit back. It might be useful to add a suggestion to return to editing for a while before coming here to that message. —Kusma (t·c) 10:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, will that result in some returning admins making a bunch of minimally productive edits to qualify for getting the bit back? Should a crat then consider the quality of edits since returning, as well as the quantity? - Donald Albury 12:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is possible to evaluate the quality of the edits. Look for example at my last 20 edits (all made today) - do they show full engagement with the project?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Donald Albury, I tried to suggest a formal requirement for 50 "non-stupid" edits/month for several months at the RfC, but it was not widely supported. I don't personally believe edit quality should count for much, as it is so hard to measure. I don't actually expect there will be many people willing to make trivial edits over a couple of months to ask for the bit back and then become inactive again. Instead, I guess most people intending to become active again will re-discover editing and then get to the required amount of edits without even noticing. But I could be wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 13:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I suspect that a delay in returning the bit will, in most cases, not particularly impact the project negatively. I just looked, and personally have eight admin actions logged in the last twelve months, and yet that puts me at 251 on the list of active admins for those twelve months. Sixty-two percent of the 1,149 current admins have not logged an admin action in the last twelve months, and 62 admins (ranked 378 to 435) have logged just one action, so a two month delay would be expected, on average, to deprive the project of less than one logged admin action. - Donald Albury 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've read the requirement over again, and I don't see anything that implies that a delay would be caused by anything other than 'crat chat. There is no requirement that the "delay" be anything longer than the current 24 hours. As to Kusma's suggestion above (X edits over several months), that only works for me if we are going to apply the same level of activity on every single administrator at all times. It's a bit ridiculous that we're being so punitive when we wouldn't dream of applying the same standards to ourselves. Risker (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: I think the "delay" may be in a scenario like this: User:MostlyInactiveFormerAdmin asks at WP:BN for access, and they are declined for not meeting the new standard, and if there was 'doubt' even after additional crat discussion. They could 'delay' this and just resume editing, then come back and ask again. Of course, any former admin that disagreed can always appeal to the community by asking at WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Xaosflux. So, how long do you propose to wait between first edit after returning and successful request for return of bits? How long, and how many edits? If they do 100 edits on their first day back, then head over here and ask for the bit back, will that be the 24 hour wait, or will that need something else? If they do 5 edits/day for a week, will that be enough? I assume that "the community" believes I'm active, but I don't hit the "very active" editor level in most months, so would I be in danger if I returned with the same level of activity? Risker (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: that's a great question and something that will take some figuring out! I don't see any part of the new guidance requiring "very active"ness, and it specifically allows for the case where the requester intends to return to activity as an editor, so actually having done so isn't a brightline. Personally, I think I'd land on the AGF side if a requester says that they will be returning - especially if they presented a case of what changed that will enable that. Now, if they 'intended' to then didn't, then got removed for inactivity again, then restarted the entire cycle again - my AGF powers may be a bit strained. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I'm in the same boat. Useight (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Risker, the issue I see is how many people are made unhappy by former sysops getting the bit back after just one edit. Also, having voluntarily resigned for a while this summer, I don't think a month or two of editing without the bit is a terrible punishment. We certainly need to do better than the lengthy discussions full of ABF that we see at almost every low-activity resysop request. —Kusma (t·c) 16:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yelyos is perhaps an example of an editor who should not have been resysopped... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC) (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 41#Resysop request (Yelyos))

• And this is also a fine example of the vintage. ——SN54129 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, neither of these resysops has caused any actual harm, though. —Kusma (t·c) 16:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Of course not. They don't do anything, harmful or otherwise. The resysops were just a *waste* *of* *time*. ——SN54129 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that a lot of this should have been hashed out before a RfC page was finalized and put in to policy. And IIRC there were a fair number of folks that mentioned the issues of vagueness. — Ched (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The vagueness is a feature and was intentional, and the granting of discretion was mentioned as a good compromise by supporters. Doing what you’re suggesting would defeat the main idea of the proposal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Literally all anyone would have to do is come in and actively start editing again for maybe even as little as a couple of weeks before requesting and no reasonable person would object. Put a little note at requests for resysop advising that. If someone isn't willing to even do that, how important is that hat for their collection? --valereee (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with you a lot of the time, TonyBallioni, but on this, what you perceive to be a feature is possibly one of the biggest fallacies that occurs on this project. "Discretion" is all well and good, but without any kind of guidance other than "use your judgment", we're just asking for them to put their heads in a blender. It's not quite up to "here's a set of keys, why don't you see if you can back that 18-wheeler down this obstacle course", but it's equally unfair, to both the bureaucrats (whose decision will always be questioned) or to the returning admin (who has no way of knowing what's expected of him to get the tools back). It's pretty obvious to someone who went and read that discussion after the fact that many of the supporters went for it, fully expecting that the end result would be to put the 'crats into a situation where they'd meet so much opposition for handing the tools back that they'd just stop doing it. Valereee, I disagree on how likely it is that "reasonable" people wouldn't object. How many edits? for how many weeks? and what kind of edits? You see, there is no common view of what that should be. Are all edits equal? Do they have to create an article? I can guarantee everyone who has commented in this thread has a different idea of what should be considered the minimum activity. I think I'm the only one who has come up with a concrete idea that includes a rationale, and I'm pretty certain almost everyone else would consider it unacceptable. Risker (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I am glad that the 'crats still fear the mere editors with torches and pitchforks. However, I think the RfC expressed frustration with the hat collectors managing to game the system. Leaving the matter up to the common-sense of the trusted bureaucrats is supposed to prevent that. The 'crats should not feel that they cannot make a judgement call without a narrow span to hide behind. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There's nothing that we could put in place that can't be gamed, with the exception of the nuclear option of "just go to RFA". What I'm seeing from the bureaucrats is exactly what could have been expected from a group of people who were selected specifically to do one series of pretty straightforward tasks, most of the time involving no discretion at all, and then telling them that their job now includes using their discretion to make decisions that are contentious every time they have come up even before there was any real discretion. Risker (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Bureaucrats are at risk of having to make a judgement call every time there's an RfA. In the past ~three years there've been around 20 requests for resysop for inactivity. Asking a couple of questions in response to the resysop request is really all that's likely necessary. Like, "You've only got 1700 global edits in the past fifteen years, only thirty edits in the past ten years. I'm concerned that you aren't familiar enough with what admin duties are now. Would you consider maybe editing for a while, kind of learn the ropes again, then come back in a few weeks and re-request?" I'm guessing for those who don't actually intend to edit, we won't see them again. -- Valereee (talk • contribs) 2019-11-06T22:19:08 (UTC)
        • Well, realistically, since 2015 only 5% of RFAs go to 'crat chat, and maybe another 5% fall in the "discretionary" range, so they really aren't making a lot of judgment calls. (After all, the main thrust of RFB has always been to confirm that the candidate will follow the 'bright lines' in closing RFAs.) And given the extremely divergent views that 'crats themselves have expressed about what kinds of standards they'd personally like to impose, I am seriously concerned that it will all depend on which 'crat has the first kick at the can and every request will wind up with a different set of expectations applied. I have made a suggestion below. I don't care about global contribs - it would only be relevant if they were applying to be a global admin - and unless we're going to start yanking admin permissions from people who make their one annual edit, I'm okay with a relatively low number of edits between return and resysop. I think we need to keep our eye on the ball. There are only a few thousand very active editors (most of them not administrators), but they're also the ones who are most likely to be opining on any RFC or noticeboard. They/we have a skewed sense of what an "average" editor or even an "average" admin does. Risker (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Failure doesn't mean RfA - nothing in my interpretation of the new changes indicates that the 'Crats declining to immediately return them limits the requesting individual to nothing or RfA. Unless they've come back with only a couple of days left to the deadline, they could request - be asked to do some more editing - and request again. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. I don't see this as something that says No. It says Show Me. --valereee (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • 100% agree. I don't see any comments suggesting this from anyone supporting, and I wrote the language specifically to allow people who were rejected to request again if they were turned down and kept editing for a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just a note. I will be keeping out of resysops whilst sitting on Arbcom, as I can see this going south very quickly. The support for this change was made by just 37 users and an ambiguous wording has been decided upon. Discretion is fine, but given that there is such a variety in opinion on what constitutes "active", a "reasonable" person could take vastly different standpoints. The first time that a 'crat refuses to resysop someone who others believe meet the threshold of active, or resysops someone else who others believe do not meet this threshold there will be upset. And since I don't see where else this can end up but Arbcom, I'm going to keep out of the whole decision making process while I'm there. Worm^TT(talk) 16:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure grants bureaucrats new discretion in processing resysopping requests - community input seeking

valereee and others put together a very helpful anonymized(ish) list at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)#Resysops. What if we distilled these into 10 or 15 hypothetical examples and sought community input as to whether each hypothetical returning user's activity was "more than enough", "enough", "not quite enough", "tending towards enough, with reassurances", "not at all enough", "not enough, even with re-assurances", etc. –xeno^talk 00:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is tricky to evaluate solely on the based of an edit count, without looking at the content of the edits in question. The nature of the edits may help indicate how engaged the former administrator remains and whether future involvement seems likely. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, 30 edits in ten years isn't enough to convince you someone shouldn't be automatically resysopped on request, no questions asked? We really need to investigate the nature of those 30 edits? --valereee (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because part of asking questions is investigating the editor's engagement with the community. To be "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" means, in part, understanding the context of their edits. One editor could make a few hundred automated edits in a week that may be less convincing than another editor making a dozen edits focused on a key area of interest. isaacl (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• How about this? Former administrators must have resumed editing a minimum of 2 weeks before the request for resysop, and must have completed a minimum of 10 edits outside of their own userspace in the 2 weeks prior to the resysop request. I would also add users must not be asked to reveal personal information about the reason for their absence or their reason for return - either by 'crats or community members, and any such request for information should be immediately reverted. Risker (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine for me (struck after Risker's reply below) but if the admin then immediately returns to inactivity after some time , say three months, the community should be allowed to challenge the return to activity. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the RFC decided. The readminship resets the clock. Risker (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

So, it basically boils down to, make one edit a year to keep your advanced permissions forever and if you forget to make it just make ten and get them back. I don't think that was the kind of discretion the community was asking/trusting the Crats to chat about. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to make someone who edited consistently for years and then fell off for a year and came back have to wait two weeks or even make a commitment to edit 5 edits a month. I do think that someone who has made one edit a year for the last 7 years and whose last admin action was deleting and restoring their own user page shouldn't have +sysop restored solely on request. There are a lot of situations in between. Having a hard numeric criteria prevents distinguishing between these situations.
  This should only be decided when requests are made and at the discretion of bureaucrats. It isn't going to be a "first crat to say no" policy, as there was also consensus for a discussion when it was contentious, and the 24 hour hold still exists.
  Despite the objections raised here, I still view the intentional ambiguity as a feature, and the arguments against it were raised in the RfC, and it still gained consensus. In fact, I think an ambiguous option is the only thing that could have gained consensus because any objective criteria would have been rejected by enough people to make it tank.
  The RfC closed giving bureaucrats discretion. We should not limit it because people are uncomfortable with writing policy broadly. There are legitimate critiques of what could happen, but we have never seen this play out yet, and I think predicting the future isn't something we should engage in. I have confidence the 'crats will be able to ignore the noise (they ignore the talk page every 'crat chat) and use their judgement, when the case arises, which is what the community has asked them to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a difference, though, TonyBallioni. On a 'crat chat, it's obvious to everyone that there is a 'crat chat; it's right there on the RFA. Requests for resysop come to this board, and it is entirely reasonable for someone coming here (probably for the first time ever) to take the word of the first 'crat who comments as "this is what I need to do", and then either decide to do it, or not do it. I get that the "ambiguous" solution gained consensus, but my reading was that it gained consensus because a lot of the people who are hardline are pretty confident that the 'crats are going to be imposing high levels and expectations on the returning admins. Risker (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    This makes no sense to me. If we think them ready to apply policy as a sysop we should think them competent to understand policy about resysop which explicitly mentions a crat chat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

    Barkeep49: if the bureaucrats have to decide for the "everypedian" (a fictional construct), we really need a more workable data set of opinions from a wide array of users as regards acceptable activity.

    For example: my personal opinion is that most administrators retain the mental capability to administrate the project responsibly despite their level of relative activity. When I proposed the bureaucrat activity requirements, I specifically included a safe harbour provision that one could "signal... that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks." If an administrator is not actively editing, but still checks their watchlist, still keeps tabs on the project, still has a good understanding of policies, and guidelines, and the appropriate way that they apply as regards content and users, in other words-they "remain actively engaged and available for administrative tasks", I don't see why this volunteer editor cannot retain a few extra buttons that might help the project's goals - once in a while. –xeno^talk 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, I understand your perspective on that - I don't agree and voted as such at the RfC - but I do understand the thinking and it does make sense. What doesn't make sense for me is Risker writing "Requests for resysop come to this board, and it is entirely reasonable for someone coming here (probably for the first time ever) to take the word of the first 'crat who comments as "this is what I need to do", and then either decide to do it, or not do it." To me if someone is competent enough to use the sysop toolkit they are also competent enough to understand the resysop process. That's where I would love if Risker, you, or someone could help me out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: I feel like what's going to happen is pretty much the parallel with how RFAs go. In RFA, there have been (and will continue to be) requests that some bureaucrats would close on their own and some would take to a 'crat chat (in which some would say that a consensus for promotion existed and some wouldn't). And this 'crat chat (or lack thereof) would be accompanied by people who agree with the result and people disagree with the result, falling into three categories: 1) "There should've been a 'crat chat but it got closed unilaterally"; 2) "The 'crat chat should've failed because XYZ"; and 3) "The 'crat chat should've succeeded because XYZ". I predict the same thing will happen with resysop requests. That is to say, there will be some requests that some bureaucrats are comfortable closing on their own and some would take to a chat, and there will still be the accompanied people who feel that whatever happened was wrong (or right). I also suspect that future RFBs (if any) will include the candidate being asked questions like "What level of activity would be necessary for you to be of the opinion that a resysop requester is actually returning to editing?" or "What would indicate to you that a resysop requester does intend to return to editing?" The question on my mind is whether the 24-hour hold period remains exclusively for cloud-checking or has it become a de facto 'crat chat in which the bureaucrats will opine about the candidate's past and potential future editing activity. Useight (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec re to BK) So you see the inherent problem: bureaucrats are being asked to decide for a wide array of users without a really good impression of where to really draw even blurry lines. And I don't think it's really fair for the first requesting administrator to be a test case where we have a "mini re-rfa" on BN. –xeno^talk 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see the potential problem yes. I definitely share your aversion to a resysop being a mini-RfA. And yes there will be a human cost to some editors who request sysop back. That is unfortunate. Of course even under old policy there could be a cost attached to a request. That is already unfortunate. However, clearly enough of us who participated in the RfC had enough faith in you the crats to decide on a fuzzy line of activity rather than a bright line of activity. Just in the same way that the community has faith that the crats will decide on a fuzzy line of 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. rather than a bright line of "part of an ArbCom case or case request". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My own resysop request here at RfA went to a crat chat, and I do not recollect anybody having problems with that. I do not quite see what has changed in less than two years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that some of the RfC participants feel that bureaucrats should decline to resysop, at least once in a while, to encourage the others. Otherwise if every request still proceeds, there is no effective change. –xeno^talk 16:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think every rejection to resysop should be done collectively and not by one crat, effectively meaning a crat chat should happen - if I understand the problem correctly.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

On what do we base our determination as to the suitability of the requestor's activity or commitment to the cause? Our own beliefs? The opinions of 37 highly active users? Our general feeling about community consensus? A wider array of users that respond to a well-formulated, highly-advertised RfC on the topic? (The last one is the least worst.) –xeno^talk 17:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be easier to just not resysop ex-admins after the tools are removed for inactivity? That's what other projects do, and I'm not quite sure why we don't do that to. If we agree as a project that long-term inactivity is bad for admins, then perhaps we need a policy with more teeth. Maxim_(talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Maxim, We just recently passed some amendments to reduce the ability of asking for the tools back from 3 years to 2 years. And we're still in discussion on the specifics of it all, and you're already suggesting that we now reduce it from 2 years to 1 year. "My, people come and go so quickly here" ~ L. Frank Baum. — Ched (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

new discretion in processing resysopping requests - procedural

Useight wrote: The question on my mind is whether the 24-hour hold period remains exclusively for cloud-checking or has it become a de facto 'crat chat in which the bureaucrats will opine about the candidate's past and potential future editing activity.

Now that the community has asked bureaucrats to monitor activity of returning administrators, I see no reason that the usual “looks fine” comments would not also speak to activity level. However  Bureaucrat note: without the “community input seeking” I’ve asked for above, the bureaucrats are on unsteady ground. –xeno^talk 16:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Since we're now suddenly adding a possible crat chat to resysops - I believe from a procedural stand point we will need to create two subsections on each resysop - comments by crats and comments by the rest of the community. I know it may not always be needed, but separating after a period of discussion will only lead to more confusion. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. –xeno^talk 16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Something like Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 8#Bureaucrat discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

... or even Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2) Thincat (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the contentious versions of the 24-hour hold are indeed crat chats now. They tend to last >24 hours and we have them I think a few times a year. Maxim_(talk) 20:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it the most recent actions of removing an editors tools are preceded by notification on the users talk page, and an email (if available). If I'm reading the passed section 7 of the recent RfC, this will happen after 1 year of inactivity. Then when the second year comes around/expires, it would require a RfA to get the tools back. My question. Will the editor in question be notified a second time near the time of the second year which eliminates a BN request possibility? Or does it just automatically become a do not pass BN, go directly to RfA situation? (without notification a second time) — Ched (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• part 2: If an editor resigns the tools in good standing, will they receive both talk page notice and email (if available) prior to the 2 year expiration date? — Ched (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For both of these, we send notices that a removal is about to happen, and when it does happen - that's it. The notices are in Template:Inactive admin and already includes a warning about certain time limits and other restrictions with a link to the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Candidate withdrew. –xeno^talk 21:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed content: Special:Diff/925386649; Special:Diff/925387213

Reporting that the above-noted RfA (GRuban's) has had significant contributions by an apparent sockpuppet. I've been already involved somewhat in this RfA in a clerking capacity - including responding to the alleged sock, so I think that other bureaucrats will need to handle this new development, and how and whether it should affect the course of the candidacy. –xeno^talk 20:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why have the comments been removed rather than struck, now the discussions they took part in look bizarre! ——SN54129 20:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, because they're ineligible contributions. Also I don't generally strike other users' comments: it gives the impression that the contributing user withdrew the remark - which is not the case here. The remarks have been removed as ineligible. I didn't feel it appropriate to remove the contributions by the eligible participants, because some of the remarks remained germane to the candidacy. If they wish to reduce the bizzare-ness of the remaining comments, those users are free to remove their remarks with whatever form of wp:redact they desire. –xeno^talk 20:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And why does no-one else do this? ——SN54129 20:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure - I can't speak for others. –xeno^talk 20:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

...and they have so spoke: the consensus seems to be to follow WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Happy days! ——SN54129 04:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I’d prefer a wider range of opinions, and something policy-based. That’s an essay, and it still includes outright removal as an option. –xeno^talk 11:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The disingenuity is noted. ——SN54129 16:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m afraid I don’t get your meaning. If you feel consensus exists to leave RfA contributions purported to be both topic and block evading in situ, please ping additional bureaucrats, or ask at WP:ARCA, or WT:RFA, and I will be guided by a fuller consensus of my colleagues, a committee declaration, or wider consensus. –xeno^talk 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have struck the edits with a note that they were made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, or even just indented the !vote. My opinion, which I concede may well be unpopular, is that in this case, the cat is out of the bag, and there's not much point to remove the comments. We can't make the RfA go back in time before any comments by ineligible account, pretend no one saw or was influenced by them, and so on. A borderline RfA was never decided by one !vote, anyway. I'm not going to do any reversions/edits to it, but I don't really agree with the present course of actions, yet I don't disagree with it enough to actually change something to the RfA. Maxim_(talk) 20:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Might as well just unblock and lift the topic ban, in that case. –xeno^talk 21:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, such a comment seems to be hyperbole based on a gross misunderstanding of my response. There is your way, which makes the discussion very difficult to follow. That's not ideal. There's my way, which effectively leaves in comments made in violation of a block and a topic ban. That also sucks. I simply argue that my way is the lesser of two evils. I don't expect you to agree, but jumping to "unblock and lift the topic ban" is a very big stretch, and frankly, uncalled for. Maxim_(talk) 21:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Drawing a line through someone’s words has no net effect. Their contributions remain in place; so if this is how they will be handled, my vote is to eliminate the theatre.

I’d suggest kicking upstairs to the committee, and let them deal with how to handle these comments if we can expect future contributions of this type. –xeno^talk 21:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've noticed that I've crossed edits with GRuban submitting a withdrawal message. I've asked them to confirm, given the fresh development. –xeno^talk 20:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• WP:SOCKSTRIKE says if there are other replies it's generally best to strike out their comment rather than remove it, specifically to avoid such concerns as mentioned above. I agree that it's largely a moot point with the nomination being withdrawn, but it still means for a fractured discussion for if and when the next try comes around and someone goes looking at RFA #1. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  The original state is available in the revision history. The whole page should probably be courtesy blanked anyway. –xeno^talk 02:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would not have removed those comments as (1) the logic trail of the RFA is now hard to follow, and (2) this was a significant event that affected the RFA (rattled the candidate) and even if withdrawn (should either have done earlier, but not now), should remain on the record for others to understand.

You did your best here xeno, but this insanity of compressing a major decision-making process (simultaneous !voting and discussion), into 7-days (unlike any other making decision making process in WP), is being gamed. A reasonable candidate with a 14-year record, got “run out of town” from making a tiny number of mistakes (thr were mistakes, no doubt), that many !voted on without really investigating the factbase of the mistakes in question.

If this was AfD, I would have given it a 7-day re-list to get people to calm down and engage more in the factbase. RFA is an AFD with a 7-day hard stop? Works fine for standard cases, but many other AFDs would also be car-crash if it had this rule. Britishfinance (talk)

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there would be no work for tinkers Leaky caldron (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance, they withdrew their nomination, so whether or not this had some sort of "relist" (or even went to a 'crat chat) is kind of a moot point. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, but maybe if he knew that RFAs that still had over say 50% support would automatically get another 7-day re-list (kind of what AfD is), then he would have stayed the course and everybody would have taken a rethink and the socking issue could have been reflected on. The contradiction of RfA is that it is considered (I think) the most broken major decision making process in WP, and yet anytime it is suggested that RfA could borrow techniques from other less-broken major decision making processes (eg pre-vote discussion/question per ArbCom and ANI, or re-lists per AFD), the strong pushback is that it would be awful. But could RfA get any more awful than it is now? A process that only works when there are no issues, but spontaneously collapses when subject to any stress, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I'm not here to debate the merits of the system as it exists, just replying to your initial comment. Maybe they would have stayed the course if there was a "if it's 50% relist" option, but that's not how it currently works so debating ifs and buts is a rather pointless venture, and not what this noticeboard is for. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting restoration of WP:INTADMIN rights in order to implement and then maintain XFDcloser as a gadget. - Evad37 [talk] 23:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: do you have WP:2FA enabled on your account? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have 2FA enabled - Evad37 [talk] 08:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yay, good job User:Evad37! Deryck C. 18:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

After 12 years, I'd like to hang up the mop. – Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done, thank you for your long service. –xeno^talk 09:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Xeno: You are welcome, and I thank you as well: the horse's mouth says that as of 09:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC) the deed is indeed done. – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Are you sure it's done, xeno? Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) still appears in Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

  Bishonen, that list is updated each day at 17:14 UTC by a bot. If you check again in 7 hours, it should be updated. Of course, that might make you a world champion thumb twiddler in the mean time... Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry. I'm not really obsessive-compulsive about checking crat actions, I'm merely using a script that shows admin usernames formatted in a special way, and Athaenara still "looks like an admin" to me in the text above. Bishonen | talk 10:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

  No worries- I think that script similarly uses a static list that is automagically updated, I don’t know the schedule for that though. Does it format my name in a special way or do I just get lumped in with the enlisted? –xeno^talk 10:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Other ranks" for xeno :) Why 17:14 I wonder? Seems oddly precise... ——SN54129 10:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  The list used is User:Amalthea (bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js, and the bot is definitely running, so it should get there soon enough, perhaps on the next hour. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, I use Amalthea's sysop script with the content a handsome royal crown ("♔"). :-) Not for the likes of you, Xeno, nor for Athaenara any longer.[10] Bishonen | talk 12:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

I thought we were an autonomous collective. –xeno^talk 13:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

1. NCurse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe I'm seeing an error here. NCurse is listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019 as having made their last logged action in 2017, but when you click on the link it sure looks like it was actually 2013 and they are therefore subject to the five-year-rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So that’s a bot generated table, it isn’t meant to determine whether the 5-year rule has been met- merely whether there has been a year since their last log action (any) or edit. The 2017 action is in the “review” log and I don’t believe it counts as an administrative act. –xeno^talk 03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The reason I was poking around to begin with was I noticed they got the standard notice with no mention that in their case the removal is permanent. Are we not doing that anymore? I'm fine with it if that's the case I just thought normally they got a different notice if the five-year-rule had attached. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone simplified the template a while back, that is now covered by the phrase ”Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions,” –xeno^talk 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Beeblebrox: the inactive admin was notified that it was going to be removed and given a link to the policy which spells out the requirements. If you have improvements you would like to add to the standardized messaging it can be updated at Template:Inactive admin and User:JJMC89 bot/config/InactiveAdmins. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s fine that we only allude to it. Takes the sting out a bit. –xeno^talk 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's fine, was just curious. Thanks again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Edgar181 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Please remove the admin flag from Edgar181 per our motion. Thanks. Katie^talk 21:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have also removed the EFM bit, because under Level II procedures, "If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them." (ref) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That works. Thanks, Kevin. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on their talk page and page, it appears that Angusmclellan (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) passed away in November. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Done, with thanks for their long service. –xeno^talk 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't think it appropriate to make an edit request on the talk page, but the user page is protected - can an admin please add nocat to the admin top icon (see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#Also). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

   Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm still somewhat mistrusful of the WMF, but I'm ready to pitch in again, at least until they come up with their next ill-advised, overreaching interference in en.wp procedures. Deor (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in the way following the 24-hour hold. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no issues, either. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. -- Avi (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Useight (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

clpo13 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I'm no longer active enough on Wikipedia to justify having administrator rights, so please remove them. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks for your service. –xeno^talk 20:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, xeno. Also, one small addition, could you unprotect my user page? I fully protected it a while back and now find that I can't update it. Whoops. clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

I find I have more time and an inclination to make myself useful. Please can I have the tools restored please. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Request seems fine, Spartaz has turned in access and restored it before and has a pattern of becoming active when returning, prior removal was self requested just a few months ago for a prior break. Standard 24 hour hold for commentary. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• I see no issues restoring the bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
•  Done welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting restoration following self-requested removal. –xeno^talk 03:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good after 24 hours. Maxim_(talk) 15:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm reasonably convinced that xeno will return to activity :) — xaosflux ^Talk 17:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

We need more good sysops :) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Gets elected to arbcom and wants admin bits back? Blatant hat collecting. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Does hat collecting require a special hatnote :-) Welcome back Xeno. MarnetteD|Talk 03:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

1. CALR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. John Reaves (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. MECU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Jengod (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Refdoc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)¹
6. K1Bond007 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)²
7. J.smith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
8. Aude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

¹ Last log 2014-08-10

² Last log 2010-08-19

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Also, though this was a few days ago (28th), isn't Pakaran no longer eligible to reclaim bureaucrat status? See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 42#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019#October 2019. Should that also be noted here? DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't normally notate something like that here if it doesn't involve actually removing access (and we'd be very busy if we tried to keep track of all former admins that pass some no-longer-eligible-to-reclaim marker) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I had an automated email telling me that my admin rights are due for removal due to inactivity. It's unlikely that I'll be able to return to active admin duties in the foreseeable future so please go right ahead and remove the mop immediately. Maybe when I retire I'll have time to ask for it back! Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

...and thank you for your service. I recognize your time from years far back. Martinp (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a proposal at the village pump with a self-explanatory title - Wikipedia:Village pump (proposal)#Proposal: Procedural removal of admin rights who have not used the admin tools for a significant period of time (maybe 5 years) - that may affect 'crat matters in the future. It's in the centralized discussion box but perhaps there are others like me that have an easier time observing a noticeboard post. Maxim_(talk) 14:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please resysop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yay! -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Desysoped per own request during Fram incident. Looks good to go after 24 hours. Maxim_(talk) 03:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hooray! Welcome back, Dennis, we have sorely missed you! -- MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back! S Philbrick(Talk) 18:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee linked above, please remove the sysop bit from BrownHairedGirl (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would do it, but BHG and I have a bit of history in the disagreement on portals, so I recuse myself from doing this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nihonjoe: so far as I am concerned, this is a purely clerical task, implementing an ArbCom decision. Bureaucrats are not being asked to exercise any discretion.

So far as I am concerned, the ArbCom decision is deeply and multiply flawed, so I will be leaving Wikipedia (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision) ... but it is also Wikipedia's highest authority in these matters, and is decision is final. So I hope that the community can rely on bureaucrats to implement ArbCom's decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. Still, I'm more comfortable with someone else doing it (and it looks like Xaosflux has done that). I wish you well in your future endeavors, whatever those may be. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done per the ArbCom ruling. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)