---

Nandesuka (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)}

Nandesuka2 (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)}

Hello Bureaucrats!

I am Nandesuka and I no longer have control over my old admin account due to being locked out of it by 2FA since March of this year. My 2FA device malfunctioned and I had lost my scratch codes long before that. Wikipedia's implementation of 2FA is extremely unfriendly for non technical users like me, with no "customer support" so to speak.

Anyway I was busy IRL from early 2020 till 3 months ago. I had tried to regain my old account a few months ago but it was not possible. I have been editing anonymously meanwhile. Since it looks like there is no hope of getting my old account, I decided to create this one. I was wondering if it is possible to get my admin rights assigned to this account since I have a committed identity?

I remember back in the day 'crats were okay with transferring adminship between accounts. I clearly remember Bishonen switching her admin hat over to Bishzilla. I looked in the archives here in BN and I see ELSchissel was in the same position as me, though they didn't want to get their account back. Will the 'crats please arrange to have my admin rights transferred to this account, since I am still eligible for resysop? Nandesuka2 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd think you would need to prove that you're the same person as the one who controls the original account, presumably by revealing the secret phrase for your SHA-512 committed identity to a 'crat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning: you can never "unshare" the SHA-512 plaintext, so doing so with WMF T&S would be the more advisable first step. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And don't just email it to them, email them explaining your situation and that you have a sha-512 published hash, they may assign someone specific to you. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Was extremely gracious of the little crat User:Rdsmith4 move admin bit from Bishonen to Bishzilla (clearly the better admin), but apparently caught some flak for it. Good luck, little Nandesuka2. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC).

 Not done you can start by contacting WMF Trust and Safety (email on that page) and seeing if they will help you with 2FA recovery. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Today's account CU-blocked. Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

---

TheresNoTime (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)}

+admin

I wish to request the reinstatement of my sysop permissions (and ideally the IA I had at the time, but that can wait/be a separate request if needed).

For transparency, I resigned a couple of weeks ago during the closing day(s) of this ArbCom case (see also this motion in said case). Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Standard minimum 24-hold for comments apply. As linked above, arbcom has not imposed any prohibition from skipping RfA as a result of their case; however the policy requirement of If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation certainly still applies. At the time of resignation (2022-11-01T12:19:08) there was an open arbcom case that was in the voting stage. The votes at the time were in favor of admonishment for serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, but were unanimously opposed to desysoping. So now it needs to be determined if this policy criteria was active or not. I can see an argument that the prohibiting criteria was in effect, in that a case is by nature a "serious question"; however I can also see arguments that it was not in effect in that the desysop remedy vote was failing meant that this was no longer "at question". Comments welcome below. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  As far as my own !cratvote, I'm leading toward support restore; the purpose of the "cloud" rule is primarily so that an admin under scrutiny doesn't avoid additional scrutiny by resigning - as further investigation could be a huge time sink for everyone involved. In this specific case, neither the investigation nor possible removal remedies appear to be impacted by the resignation. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Xaosflux, above. I see nothing that would prevent the admin bit from being retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Not a crat, but I agree with everyone above that this can go through. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• This is not a typical "under a cloud" case where we don't know what the outcome would have been. ArbCom said "don't desysop". If TNT hadn't resigned, they'd still be an admin right now, and anyone who had a problem with that fact would have to start a second ArbCom case. The fact that TNT did resign is irrelevant. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I actually think you're eliding an important point. The WP:CLOUD metaphor is not one specific ArbCom thing but rather ...the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions (quoted from WP:RESYSOP). In terms of ArbCom's opinion in this particular case, it may be pretty clearly and cleanly decided (e.g. the WP:RESYSOP footnote citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels), but there are more to clouds than just ArbCom and there is more to scrutiny than just whether or not ArbCom still has desysop-ing on the table. Without opining on the case at hand, it's not irrelevant that someone resigns the tools. ArbCom removing the tools is a difficult step to clear, but there being murky/cloudy circumstances around someone is intentionally a lower standard. Bureaucrats saying "This could be dodgy, spend a week at RfA" is supposed to be an intermediate between "Clearly no issues" and "ArbCom took the tools away." One could think another has a cloud but support them at RfA, and bureaucrats have room outside of "is there an ArbCom PD that could pass?" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any non-case proceedings that were open in parallel at the time of the resignation (and generally the community abandons pursuing community sanctions once it has been escalated to arbcom) - but if there were and such a discussion was cut short because of the resignation, that could be its own issue. (Anyone wanting to present this please provide permalinks). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, wasn't meaning to imply there were any here, I don't think there were/are (beyond the PD talk, etc.). Just noting that there's more than just AC (or should be) for this sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding of resignation under a cloud is that it is not limited to resolutions in an ArbCom case; the phrasing used is serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation. If serious questions about whether TNT's violation of involved made their status as an administrator inappropriate existed in the broader community at the time of resignation, then an automatic reapproval may not be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• No concerns from me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Speaking with my arb hat on and not with my crat hat on and explicitly not voting as a crat because I believe it would be inappropriate to do so. I do not believe the committee would have desysopped, we had unanimously disagreed with doing so at the time of resignation, and there was a majority. What's more, the Arbcom requirement from over a decade ago that a person cannot be automatically resysopped after quitting during a case did not consider the scenario that we had already disagreed with with a desysop. Worm^TT(talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Worm here. This was a unique situation in that we had already explicitly voted not to remove the admin bit just before it was resigned. I'm pretty sure that "unprecedented" can be taken literally here and that therefore the cloud rule simply does not apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have any issues with restoring the toolset - with the usual delay of course. I am a bit worried about the context of what went on, and would stress to TNT to not go down the same road. I've not read all of the arbcom case that is associated with this, but it's very clear that there was no want to remove the tools, and at the time it was stated that the tools weren't "on the line" (so to speak). Disgression is the better part of Valor. There's no policy reason why the toolset can't be returned for a voluntary removal like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like my hand is involved when it comes to this, so I won't be touching the buttons, but I think Lee made precisely the point I was coming to make. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: just FYI, it's "discretion", as in being discrete; see wikt:discretion and indeed wikt:discretion is the better part of valour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC) </pedantry> If you're okay with more pedantry, I'll just fix your own misspellings... Primefac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the circumstances of the (self-)desysop and the feedback from the committee regarding it, I have to agree with my fellow ’crats that this request should be granted after the standard hold. Welcome back, TNT. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• My vote would be to restore the admin tools for reasons I will explain in a moment; however, I'm not sure we should be voting to restore before we discuss if this request is one that comes under "In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.". Also, just for clarity, it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".

  My own reading of the situation, and why I am in favour of restoring the tools, is that given that TNT had requested the case be held in public, and that at the time of the request the ArbCom desyop proposal was not passing, I can't see how the request could be motivated to avoid scrutiny or sanction. They had requested public scrutiny, and they were not going to be sanctioned by having the tools removed. I personally regard temporarily resigning the tools in a stressful situation to be a sensible and applaudable decision, and something that all admins should consider doing when faced with stress.

  However, as I say, I am reluctant to apply my vote until we have decided if this request should be classed as a "doubtful case". I think it is a "doubtful case", but at the same time I doubt if there would be sufficient objections from the community to a resysop to justify holding a "broader community discussion", and so having such a discussion could be seen as unnecessarily bureaucratic. So my inclination is that a broader discussion is not warranted; however, I would welcome more thoughts on this, and particularly input from the community as to if a broader discussion is something desired. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  It could be argued that what we are having now is a "broader community discussion" given that this is a discussion among members of thecommunity that is broader than just the crats. Obviously it's not as broad as one at somewhere like AN would be, let alone RFA, but if the rules intended to specifically mandate an RFA they would explicitly refer to RFA rather than a vague phrase like "broader community discussion". Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In your experience Thryduulf, is there so far greater community input into this request than normal? If so, I think I could agree with your argument. SilkTork (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  If we consider all resysop requests then yes this clearly has more interaction than normal. I think it would be more relevant to consider resysop requests as falling into two types - (1) those that are obviously not at all controversial and (2) others (including this request). The reason for the split being that very few people see any need or benefit to commenting on type 1 requests (in all cases discounting post-restoration "welcome back" type comments). Considering the set of type 2 requests I would say this is at the high end of the normal range. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a good idea to simply label this discussion, after the fact, as a broader community discussion. The members of the community that like to discuss these matters know that the bureaucrats have the responsibility of evaluating the circumstances of how administrative privileges are relinquished, and this influences participation in what is generally considered a bureaucrat discussion. A community discussion should be announced as such in suitable venues, inviting greater participation. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In response to the request for clarity (it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".), I certainly didn't do so to avoid further scrutiny. As I saw it, the result was a "done deal", and all "exposure, scrutiny or sanctions" had been levied. On a more cautious note, that situation put me over my own "red line" in regards to my health, at which point resignation was not only a matter of being upset, but peace of mind. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that TheresNoTime. That is exactly how I viewed it, and also why I felt at the time that your request should be immediately actioned. Given all the circumstances, including Thryduulf's observation that this discussion could well serve as the "broader community discussion", I can't see any reasonable impediment to the tools being restored. SilkTork (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork I'd say this discussion itself satisfies a "broader discussion", and would support any reasonable extensions in the minimum time requested. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how ArbCom could have been more explicit that this is fine, and I am happy to see TNT return to adminship. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• The case had reached its apex at the time that TNT had resigned, and it did not seem that the outcome would have been altered in any way as a result of her resigning or not resigning. WP:CLOUD states that cloudiness is determined when there seems a plausible chance their resignation was in part designed to evade or frustrate formal discussion of their conduct. The formal discussion had concluded. No further recriminations were pursued by the community, as they very well could have done so. Restoration of rights should be a done deal here. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There's clear consensus here. Restoring the mop. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a joke? An admin resigns for misusing the mop, and is given the mop back by a simple request? For the record, I would appreciate confirmation that TheresNoTime didn't also misuse the mop in my one and only interaction with her, at FormalDude's talk page, in which she threatened me with her very admin-ness. Posting on mobile, so can't provide diffs right now. But this is absolutely not an acceptable situation, by any stretch of the imagination. TheresNoTime should be required to go through the entire RfB process from scratch, with her recent conduct in full view for everyone to see. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

TheresNoTime did not resign for misusing the mop, she resigned in part for misusing checkuser tools, which she has not gotten (and will not get) back here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the diffs I believe Homeostasis07 is referring to — Special:Diff/1077914768, Special:Diff/1077916517, Special:Diff/1077917307, Special:Diff/1077918276 (and the permalink talk section for ease of reading). I don't personally believe that I misuse[d] the mop in that interaction (nor do I believe I threatened [them] with [my] very admin-ness) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 02:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"despite an administrator telling you not to" and "I won't ask you again" coupled with a threat to take me to ANI for daring not to do exactly what you say is most definitely a threat. And thanks for confirming that you did indeed use the tools on me during that interaction. There was absolutely no reason for you to believe my account was in any way compromised, or that I was in any way colluding with any other user in that interaction. This user does not deserve reinstatement. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"thanks for confirming that you did indeed use the tools on me during that interaction" - what are you on about..? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"I don't personally believe I misuse[d] the mop in that interaction" = you used the tools but don't believe it was a misuse. It's clearly a longstanding pattern of tool abuse; you use the tools on any user you disagree with. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I think you may have misunderstood my statement — when I said "I don't personally believe that I "misuse[d] the mop" in that interaction", I meant that seeing as I clearly didn't take any administrative actions during that interaction, I couldn't have misused the tools... as they weren't used? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I want specific confirmation from someone else that TheresNoTime didn't access my personal details through the CheckUser tool on March 28 last. I have no interest in continuing the current pedantic nonsense with her above. If anything, her behavior here is confirmation she does not deserve reinstatement. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No one has used the CheckUser tool on your account. Izno (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I'm sorry if any of this came across as pedantic. As has now been confirmed to you, I've never used any "tools" on your account. I'd appreciate an apology, as most of what you've said is fairly baseless. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 04:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

+intadmin

• No objections, contingent on the +admin passing above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• No objections here, either, provided the admin bit is retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment in principle I have no objection to TNT regaining all tools, I argued as much before the case kicked off. But I do think we should establish categorically that the ArbCom would not have been minded to revoke any tools had the case continued. This is purely to not establish a precedent that you can "resign under a cloud" at a point in time when a vote appears to be in your favour and then later roll back in purely on that basis.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the circumstances of the resignation were completely unrelated to TNT's being an interface administrator, arbcom were not considering (nor was there any reason why they would consider) removing that permission, and there were (to my knowledge) no discussions about their actions as an interface admin at the time they resigned the tools, I can see no reason why this bit shouldn't be restored if they are reinstated as an administrator. Whether they should be reinstated as an administrator is something I have not yet formed an opinion on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• If admin bit is restored then the intadmin bit should also be restored. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  In a proper bureaucracy, wouldn't that need an extra 24 hours wait, as only admins can apply for intadmin? —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  IntAdmin can be restored immediately upon request by any admin who previously held the permission, so... no. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I should have known we have a rule for this. Anyway, no objections. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Restored. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Eddie891 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)Hi, I was de-sysop'ed upon request about a month ago. While I'm not interested in going into great detail about my personal life, I have been going through some mental issues regarding depression and pretty serious suicidal ideation. I requested de-adminship in the throes of that as a way of both cutting myself off from things I enjoyed and ensuring that I did not do something with the tools that I regretted.I have been working to address those issues and think I'm in a much better (though still not perfect) place right now on the balance. I do feel ready to request the toolset again and hopefully become somewhat (re)involved with the community I have grown to appreciate so much. I don't think this would constitute a resignation under a cloud, and I don't think anything major has changed that would stand in the way of this request, but respect the communities judgment on both counts. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy to hear you are feeling a bit better. I don't see any issues - regular 24 hour hold for comments. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Admitenttly im a bit hesitant because they are in the middle of some personal issues and regaining his tools might worsen his condition,i would much rather prefer a level-headed admin but i am open to being subject to other opinions--85.99.22.160 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the decision here. In principle we know nothing about the private lives or situations of our editors, and they have no bearing on decisions made on-wiki. Eddie will be judged by their contributions here, and the fact that they've chosen to divulge the health issues they've been facing does not change that. Wishing you all the best and glad you're feeling somewhat better, @Eddie891:.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

In principle we know nothing until someone elects to tell us. There is nothing in the rules to inhibit the return of the tools, though it is appropriate to take greater care in some situations, such as when a user tells us they were concerned they may misuse the tools, and are "still not perfect". Personally, I would have liked a bit more discussion with Eddie to find out how secure they are (I did email them yesterday, though they have not responded). In situations like this, the return of the tools could aid someone's recovery, and I hope that is the case here. I echo Amakuru's sentiment, and wish Eddie all the best. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to go into greater depth over email, but just a note that I do feel capable of acting on-wiki in as level headed a manner as ever. And I would expect my actions to be held to the same standard as any other user, so my contributions will hopefully reflect this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Eddie and I have spoken over email, and I am confident they will continue to use the tools in a responsible manner. That they had the courage and good sense to hand them in when they were in crisis is a strong indicator that Eddie can be trusted. I will repeat what I have said previously, that I respect every admin who has the good sense to hand in the tools when they are under stress in any way. And we don't need to know the reasons. SilkTork (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Due to the new admin requirements, there are a very large number of admins listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023. This was expected, but can be quite striking to see. If anyone sees any thing wrong with the reporting, please bring it up sooner than later. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is rather striking to see a list that long, but it really drives home the point of the new rule: having that many admins who are not actively engaged with the community is not a good thing, as we've seen again and again. That's not to say anyone on that list is a problem, rather that none of them are a problem yet. The lowest numbers on there are two admins who have made seven edits in the last five years, and some that have not used admin tools in over a decade. One thing that did jump out at me is Xdamr, who is already listed in the above section for removal this month. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox thanks for the note, should fall off during the next bot run - will watch for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done This was resolved during the next bot update. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. For those of us who've been around a while it's an extraordinary list, and not just because of the length. 131? That more than decimates the admin corps... BusterD (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of doing this is that these folks already are not admins. What it does is make itr clearer how many admins there actually are. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I was bemoaning the number despite my qualification. My first admin coach is on the list and several editors who were important influences. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's always sad to see recognizable names getting desysopped due to inactivity, but it's worth keeping in perspective that this administrative "culling" was not merely "expected", but was actually carefully calculated by the architect of the proposal, Worm That Turned. IIRC, Worm made it clear that based on his statistical analysis, he believed that the list could and should be longer without it negatively affecting the project, but that he was choosing to put forward a very conservative proposal that had the highest chance of passing, rather than trying to get the activity requirements to where they should actually be. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Swarm, you give me too much credit. It is terribly sad to see so many names on the list, but I am glad to see it's about a 1/3 less than it was in March, where we could have lost nearly 200 admins. That implies that about 60 odd admins have come towards re-entering the community and that's fantastic news. Worm^TT(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is sort of sad to see so many names on that list that I remember as very active at one time. Of course, I've had my low activity spells as well (just 17 edits in all of 2017), but I came back. Donald Albury 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

In your lowest 5-year period (2013-2017), you made 837 edits. That's more than 8 times as many as would be required to not get desysopped under these rules, and I would argue that factor matters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sometimes gotten bummed out about/tired of WP, but I have never completely burned out. I will also note that I did support this new rule. Donald Albury 19:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing Pedro on that list bummed me out. He was one of my first friends here, back in the mid-00s. To paraphrase Dwight from The Office: "While today it is them, we all shall fall." Useight (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Useight. You're a genuinely fine person, and it's been my pleasure to meet you, albeit virtually. Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Three on the list are still active around the movement, which is good (the developer folks I could identify, Tim, Aaron, and Hashar). I daresay they're being useful still. Izno (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the names on the list should be considered "not useful", and may well be significantly involved elsewhere in the movement, which is great. However, if they're not active in en.wp, they shouldn't be holding on to the admin toolset, inflating the stats and giving people a false sense of security. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we are looking at this as losing administrators, we are wrong. If you aren't making edits and not doing any administrative actions, you are an admin in name only. It might be sad to see users that were active/well respected over five years ago, but it's not like the editors cannot become good editors again if they wanted too. It does feel like we are looking at a series of users that inflating our overall number of sysops, but obviously there's a lot more to do than be an admin - so we don't need to be fretting about losing respected editors. Things will even out shortly after this mass exodus. I'd be happy to support or nominate an admin that lost the toolset due to inactivity if they wanted to run again. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed Cecropia on that list, who is also a Crat. There may be others too - it's a long list, and I skimmed it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

No, Cecropia is the only current crat on the list. Izno (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

For those not following along closely at home, the bureaucrat activity requirements were harmonized with the new requirement in an April 2022 BN discussion. –xeno^talk 02:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• I just ran into an admin I was unfamiliar with who I saw on the Deletion log and when I checked them out, their last admin action was in 2010. So, I guess some inactive admins are interested in coming back to active service. But a lot of things have changed in 12 years.

But I do have a question for you, Xaosflux, will this admin inactivity review be done annually or just this once? Or will the bot handle this 100 edits/5 year review on a "rolling basis"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a continuous activity log, so it will be done monthly just as the other inactivity checks have been done in the past. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

^that. A cycle can started 'anytime', but for practicality it is done once a month at the top of the month. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 13:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Good policy or not, that comes across as a really toxic uncivil comment, and I don't think it represents a widely held view. Most of these admins have done an enormous amount to get us to where we are today. I'd like to thank each and every one of them, whether they choose to continue or not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As opposed to the various "sweep them out" comments (yeah, thanks for dismissing the hundreds of thousands of edits by previously committed editors like me @Roxy , really makes us happy for the unpaid effort...) I think I'll go for another plan, and log back in and start editing. Just for spite. The collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia has clearly long since gone. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I came here to just get a desysop, as I don't really care. But the posts above, particularly Roxy's, dismissing casually the hard work of hundreds of editors are a disgrace. So I am literally going to edit to p*ss of Rory and his ilk. What a shame. What a shame. Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pedro Welcome back. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[Uncollegial comment removed] - Roxy the dog 22:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we not, thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not know about the collegial atmosphere but I am sure everybody would appreciate if you do it. Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog has been blocked for one month for their comments on this page per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing#Roxy_the_dog_warned and behaviour history. SilkTork (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems like overkill to me. The warning Roxy had should have been enough. I see Bish has shortened it to 24 hours and I hope that sticks. SilkTork, I'm very disappointed. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not sad, and we as a community should stop treating inactivity desysops as if it were sad or something to be avoided or discouraged or kept to a minimum, because what is the alternative? If an inactivity desysop makes you sad, then what would make you happy? A lifetime of contributions? Is that what this community expects from its volunteers: once a sysop, you should continue to actively edit (and actively admin?) for the rest of your life? No, of course not! That would be silly. It's perfectly normal for someone to volunteer, even for years, and then to stop volunteering, and we should not treat this as if it's sad, or bad, or anything other than normal--and wonderful! Because the wonderful part is the part when they were volunteering, and we can't expect it to continue forever. Celebrate their contributions, don't lament that the contributions didn't last forever, because that's unrealistic. Sure, we might be sad because we miss particular volunteers who we worked with, but since we've had 1,000s of admin volunteers, we should expect to see hundreds of regular desysops as people naturally cycle through, and that's not sad, it's normal and wonderful. We shouldn't create the expectation that anything less than forever is sad. /rant Levivich (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

---

StuffOfInterest (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)}

After not being very active for a few years, well actually closer to a decade, it is past time to pull my Admin permissions. Please return me to the ranks of a regular user, where I started out 17 years ago. Thank you. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with thanks. Do feel free to let me know if you’d like any other permissions (rollback, etc.). –xeno^talk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having rollback since I still spot a boneheaded edit now and then. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Great, you're all set for rolling back :) –xeno^talk 00:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to StuffOfInterest for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. –xenotalk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

---

JarBot (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)}

User:JarBot is operated by a user who is now globally banned. The account itself is globally blocked, but the enwiki page hasn't been updated, nor has the enwiki bot flag been removed. Recommending deflagging to avoid any confusion; the bot shouldn't be able to run, but people looking for a bot operator might go there. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done as the operator can not control it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Duly added to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. Graham87 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Stephen (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)}

The Arbitration Committee have resolved in the final decision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen that:

The link to the remedy is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen § Restoration of administrative permissions. Please restore the administrator rights to Stephen (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Stephen's rights have been restored. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Fribbler (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)}

Hello, I have returned after a difficult hiatus of a year and a half after my father's death and my diagnosis with epilepsy. I feel like I can now be active again.

Regards Fribbler (talk)

Fribbler (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Fribbler (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed in April this year due to inactivity. Last admin log was Jan 2021, however only 33 edits spanning the prior 60-month period. @Fribbler: do you realize this will immediately put you on track for inactivity removal under criteria 2? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Procedural query: Am I reading correctly in that former admins can re-request the tools that are removed for falling below the 100 edits in 5 years requirement? And do they have to first achieve the activity requirement, or do bureaucrats just need to be reasonably convinced that they will? –xeno^talk 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Starting January 2023, they won't be able to re-request the tools. Since it's still 2022, the new activity requirements technically haven't come on line yet, so this request is valid (provided that the answering crat is reasonably convinced Fribbler intends to return to activity). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xeno and @Pppery the RfC was unsurprisingly silent on this (creating timing of edge case headaches has become routine in these policy updates, leading to revisits such as this), so it seems that Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship is all that guides this. The policy was not modified to create a new disqualifying condition in the last RfC. Someone putting themselves in a continuous short-term loop of inactivity removal should raise the reasonably convinced argument. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Quiet, but surely it's implied, as the alternative would be a crat flipping the bit then immediately removing again? NOTBURO and all that. I suppose it could be argued that the individual may be gifted a grace period until the end of the calendar month, but that's mostly an artifact of bot convenience. I'd likewise imagine (IANAB) that in (nearly?) every such case that a request would implicitly fail the "reasonably convinced" test. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer actually it appears it would trigger the required warning cycle to start again. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point! Which for this item is noted specifically as Three months before the request for desysopping and again one month before the desysopping goes into effect. I actually think that's a pretty self-resolving conclusion, without needing any new policy or discussions: if crats aren't convinced, it doesn't need to be returned, but if they are and do, the individual has more than three months, after which either activity has returned or the bit is removed again and surely crats wouldn't be convinced a second time. I retract my above completely! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate on Xaosflux's comments, Fribbler's last 100 edits go back ten years. I'm sympathetic to people taking lengthy sabbaticals because of family issues, particularly over the past few years where Covid has disrupted families enormously. But, while it's possible for Fribbler to get 67 edits in the next three and a half weeks and avoid being immediately desysopped again, I'm not convinced they'll be able to do it in a manner that won't arouse suspicion - certainly, any straight return to administrative areas they haven't substantially touched in well over a decade is almost guaranteed to invite strong criticism. So I would advise Fribbler to forget about this and do some regular editing first instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

•  On hold  Bureaucrat note: I am not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, with only 1 edit in the last year, and ~33 edits in the last 5 years. Fribbler, I do welcome you back and look forward to you returning to editing first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Decline to resysop. Fribbler has had barely any engagement in Wikipedia for more than ten years, and has given no indication of returning to activity now. Fribbler, much has changed on Wikipedia since you were last active, and some low activity admins have made mistakes which have caused concern; as such the community would prefer long term low activity users to fully engage with the project for a decent length of time to show understanding of current policies and expectations, before requesting the tools back. In your case, with the new rules, this would likely put you in the position of having to go through a RfA in order to get the tools back. I welcome you back as a participant in the project; there is much to do here, and all help is welcome. There is much good you can do without the tools. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think policy requires a fresh RfA per se, though I do think bureaucrats can reasonably decline the request absent either a return to the community's present activity expectation (ideally) or a very convincing commitment to do so before a subsequent inactivity trigger. Accordingly, I recognize - and second - the holding of the request. In the interim, I would be willing to apply other permissions (such as rollback) to your account, Fribbler as you work towards the relative activity levels now required of administrators. –xeno^talk 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  My reading of the situation was that Xaosflux had put the request on hold to allow "sufficient discussion" among us Crats to see if there was consensus that Fribbler had returned to activity or intended to. And that if Fribbler was not granted the tools by the end of this month, then they would need to gain them back via RfA. Your comment, though, has alerted me to another possibility - that this request is being put on hold until the end of the month, to see if Fribbler will engage with the project sufficiently to encourage enough trust to grant them the tools. That is still possible. If Fribbler does sufficiently engage, I will support restoration of the tool kit, because that would be within the existing rules. Though, following the spirit of the RfC I would be looking for more than a few token edits - I would still be looking for full engagement with the project for a decent length of time given the lengthy disconnect. I'm easy with whatever we go with: discussion and close now (with the option to reopen before 2023) or hold until 2023. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork I'm missing a policy reason that would preclude Fribbler from returning to editing, then requesting reinstatement here after January? The new 100edit/60month rule that starts in January certainly creates a new removal criteria in addition to the 0actions/1year one; however it did not create new criteria in the reinstatement prohibitions. My hold above is indeed to allow the sufficient discussion as to this specific request, in the event other crat's are "reasonably convinced" for immediate return. Should we not be, I expect to convert that to a "not done". — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Right, my original assumption was that missing the 5 year/100 edits requirement would trigger one-way removal (similar to the lengthy inactivity triggers) while on inspection this does not seem to be an outcome of the RfC. (See my procedural query above) –xeno^talk 14:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, I see. I have now digested the above discussions - I hadn't realised that there would be a recount of three months; my reading was that if someone did not meet the requirement they did not meet the requirement, and that any warnings had already been given, so needn't be given again. So, we can turn down this request, but at any time in the next 24 months Fribbler can request the tools back again, and if they convince us they are or will become active, they can become an admin again for at least three months, even if they don't edit again after the resysop. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SilkTork that's my reading. I think the 100/60 rule does provide some guidance of community expectations in this matter, and am using that to help determine how "convinced" I am. While certainly not a bright line rule, I think in general I'll lean on asking those wanting to be restored to reach a re-engagement level that won't immediately require starting a count-down clock on them upon restoration. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts here are that at present we should not return the sysop bit to an individual who is not currently meeting the "100 edits in 5 years" minimum. That said, our levels for remove and return are not the same, for good reason. I would expect removals for inactivity to be a normal process and as long as the individual no longer meets our "inactivity threshold" and does not meet our "lengthy inactivity" threshold then we should be able to resysop.

In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I basically concur. Fribbler asked for the tools back prior to the 2023 cutoff and so long as at least one 'crat feels the return is genuine and Fribbler will re-engage with Wikipedia as it exists now then the bit can be flipped. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a crat, but I don't think that's what Worm said. I also think it's a misreading of the RfC. In the RfC I think the community said "this is the level we expect" 100 over past 5 years and also said "it's reasonable to give admins some time to meet this level". Saying that because the second part is true (phase in) that that the first part (expectation of activity) isn't a community consensus feels out of line with the RfC results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WTT said "In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board." I agree with the consequent given the antecedant. I am not sure the antecedent is justified yet, though, but that is a different question. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A year-and-a-half hiatus? Not only do the last 100 edits go back 10 years, the last 200 edits go back 12 years to...huh, August 2009, just after they RfA'd. This person literally stopped editing once they passed RfA. This is a prime example of the type of situation that pisses off non-admins. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Their first edit coming back in, minutes before they came back here to ask for the tools: adding an inline external link to a twitter account with the edit summary, "I think an external link is appropriate in this case." Um. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I must say I'm not overly convinced that this editor has made much of an effort to being active before starting this thread - which to me is a bit of a red flag. We are talking about 100 edits over the previous 10 years. If the user could show that they are active, then going back to the 2009 RfA consensus would make sense, but without even that, I feel like we would be both promoting a user that is going to be straight into the possible desysop list, but also one that hasn't interacted with the community much (if at all) since that time. I'd feel more comfortable if they met the activity threshold first before being resysoped. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; regardless of which set of desysop rules we refer to (2022 or 2023 rules), restoration can be put on hold or declined if there is no willing bureaucrat to grant it. An average of 5 edits per year for the last 10 years does not make me confident that Fribbler has returned to the type of activity the community wants to see in an admin. As stated above, even if we were to grant, Fribbler would immediately trigger the lack-of-edits clause in January (assuming they maintain their current editing numbers).

In other words, I am firmly in the "decline" camp for now, but have no prejudice against Fribbler re-applying in a month or two to demonstrate that they are planning on meeting the new activity requirements (even if they are not 100% meeting them at the time of reapplication). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

---

•  Not done @Fribbler: per above, there are "return to activity" concerns that were not overcome, yet. So what now? Well, first as I said I above, Welcome back!. Next, you can of course immediately return to editing the encyclopedia, there are always areas open to contributions. Then, if you return to activity I suggest you review some of the changes related to administrators - Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators and the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS are good resources. Finally, you may re-request restoration here once you are active again. As a soft suggestion, this should be after at least 100 non-trivial edit contributions. Option 2, if you think we are just wrong about this you can ask for restoration from the community by opening a request at WP:RFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

---

I want to request to became Adminship to the wikipedia please. Thanks. Tsnded1 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This ain't the place to request adminship. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. However, I would suggest not doin' it right now because you've only been here for 29 days, made only 53 edits, and a history of copyright problems, per your talk page. Sarrail (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

---

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity, criteria 2. Thank you for your service.

Work notes

Done

Discuss Criteria 2 removal group

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of these to do, as expected. I put notes above if any other crats want to work on some, please just mark them off as you go; if not I'll get to them within the day. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You deserve a bonus, Xaosflux, for spending your New Year's Eve/Day on this task. The list is long and I'm sure removing permissions is not the most enjoyable task a bureaucrat has to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll set aside half of my admin pay as a bonus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Within the day? Closer to within the hour. Well done. Useight (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notes, these should all be  Done. If I missed anything, please fix it or ping me. Happy New Year! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well, there they are. Many unfamiliar names on this list and a few I recognize. To be honest, I'm more concerned about the recently reactivated admins, some of whom haven't done an admin action in years who have come back to active service. Their contributions are appreciated, of course, but many things have changed since they were they were active on a daily basis. But thanks to all admins and bureaucrats for their service in 2022. On to the new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's good news for some admins who returns to activity, and we have 97 admins removed, so this is the first time since 2006 that the number of admins are under 1000 and it may plummet to below 900 in this year. Thingofme (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Admins in Critera 1 and Criteria 2: Please note, some admins were in both groups; this may have resulted in you getting double notifications; apologies for any annoyance. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Saw this come up a moment ago, went to help out given the sheer amount but saw you'd already done it, Xaosflux! Good work, but sad work. Acalamari 05:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I recognize 5 of the names is all, most of which you all would remember if you have been here a long time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  About the same here. I also randomly picked a name I did not recognize and checked their logs. Their last admin action was six years ago, and they hadn't really been actively using the tools on a regular basis since 2008. This process seems to be having the intended effect of giving a more realistic idea of how many admins there really are as opposed to how many people have the toolset by default but do not actually use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I recognize a few more of the names than that ... among others, the list includes at least five former arbitrators, four of whom I served with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Same. Thanks @Newyorkbrad: for the note about former arbitrators ... I'd had only four listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2023, but it turns out I never actually noted Steve Smith as a former arb (despite meaning to add that yesterday). Also checking Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, Camembert and Fennec were early arbs (which I hadn't noticed because they were on ArbCom before checkuser/oversight rights were part of the package, and in Camembert's case before either of them even existed!) Graham87 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks to all of them for their service. While most have been sufficiently inactive in recent times that saying this is like whistling in the wind, I still think it deserves to be said. Martinp (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I spotted one, Alphachimp, and while I first thought they were deliberately gaming the system since first being warned about being desysopped over a decade ago, I think they just simply lost interest in Wikipedia around 2007. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel hurt by this desysopping. Gosh, I knew many of these people too. --HappyCamper 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  People are allowed to move on to new hobbies. No one should feel pressured to continue to contribute here beyond the point which they stop actually enjoying it. Maybe they've moved on to something they're having a ton of fun with, like replicating all the technical bakes in Great British Bakeoff. Good for them! Valereee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry that you feel hurt, and I do remember you from 15 years ago. Your work is still appreciated. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  The community never intended adminship to be a permanent status symbol, as you apparently see it, HappyCamper. Your own editing has been sparse these last few years so you have no need for tools. That's ok. You served as an admin and your life moved on from this website and no one blames you. We can find other editors with time on their hands to be admins. Please examine your motives in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  HappyCamper, not a crat, but just looking through your recent edit history, you meet the criteria for restoration of the flag (i.e. you've recently returned to activity; looking at your most recent edits it seems it just isn't one edit to maintain the flag; and you made an admin action within the last 5 years.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And that would be a great idea, seeing as how this editor has made fewer than 200 edits in the past 15 years. Clearly someone we would want to do some adminning. WTF, Tony? Well, it might not be a bad idea to make a few hundred edits before requesting the toolset and starting in on admin work again; there have been a lot of changes in the past fifteen years, and it could take a while to get yourself up to speed. Valereee (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The policy standard for restoration is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, which was added as a way to make sure people couldn't game the system and just request it back immediately after removal if they didn't intend to actually do anything. Someone with 38 edits in a month is more active than many admins we have already who are engaged with the community. When implementing the new policy standard, the community did not make it a permanent removal. If HappyCamper has returned to activity, intends to stay above the activity thresholds, and they were caught in the removal window because of bad timing, then restoration at their request is reasonable.

  If they don't intend to return to activity, that's a different discussion, but inactivity removals were not meant to be punitive and letting someone who looks like they were trying to return to activity know that they're entitled to ask for it back after they express that they've been hurt is a reasonable thing to do in my opinion. I'm not advocating for it one way or another, but I don't think we should hide what someone's rights (for a lack of better word) under the inactivity policy are from them when they complain about a removal. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't punitive to question whether someone has kept up to make sure they understand current policy. It isn't punitive to ask people to show they've started to work again. 200 edits in 15 years is not evidence of returning to activity. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ultimately that's a question for crats if the flag is requested back: when drafting the language it was made intentionally ambiguous to allow room for judgement calls. I suppose my point of view is that if someone has returned and is making a decent amount of edits within the last 30 days, and says they intend to continue to be active, that meets the policy standard. That being said, I do think it is reasonable to ask that they show they're not eligible for desysop on the 100/5 rule, which for HappyCamper would be 36 edits. If they keep up the level of activity they've had, that wouldn't be all that long. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni every single admin that was desysoped was given a personal talk message including: ...Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN..., with a link to the policy outlining the details. I don't think we are "hiding" anything here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I know. I was responding to the WTF Tony?, not criticizing you. It also goes to my point - we've already told people they can request restoration. If they don't seem to understand that, there's no reason not to explain it more clearly when they complain. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am honestly a little surprised by the vitriol and sarcasm being thrown at editors here. WT:RFA is a non-stop deluge of people worried we're losing admins, but BN has occasional bursts of editors ragging on returning admins who might want to re-start their editing. It's hard to get motivated to return when comments are met with sarcasm implying that we don't want them around any more. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone can restart their editing. No one needs admin tools to do that. If a former admin came in here after a period of resuming editing and said, "Hey, I just had to ask someone to take a look at a deleted page for me to see if there were any useful sources I could retrieve for a related article I've been working on...can I get my tools back?" I'd be cheering. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this is where I am confused; you are happy for a returning previously-inactive admin to return to editing and then later ask for the tools, but someone mentions that is a possibility and you imply that they're no longer welcome. Either way, HappyCamper has not yet made any indication that they will be seeking the tools, so we do not need to make judgements about their character. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, what I indicated is that I think it's nuts if someone both doesn't listen the first time they're told and isn't familiar with the policy even though it's been posted to their user talk four times in the past 8 months, we still want to make absolutely sure they know they can ask for their hat back any time. So we kindly explain it again when they complain. I am trying really hard not to sound snarky here, so please take this as a sincere question. Why are we so set on making sure someone knows something that, if they had kept up even slightly, if they'd bothered to read multiple messages going back months on their user talk, if they still understood this place well enough to be actually doing any of the stuff that toolset lets them do, they'd either already know or know how to find out? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't read any snark in that, and I don't necessarily have an answer; I suppose one would assume anyone asking for their bits back will have read everything. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  If other people's kindness bothers you, could you refrain from commenting? It doesn't come across as improving the atmosphere here —Kusma (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I approve of kindness, but maybe we could try to look at that particular act of kindness from the point of view of someone who is not an admin. What does it look like from the point of view of someone who has spent the last fifteen years making tens of thousands of edits and is not likely to become an admin? Valereee (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Envy will not help them become an admin. I will continue to support changes to make adminship easier to get. Until a major shift in that direction happens, it is better for Wikipedia to take some ex-admins back than to run out of admins. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can you try for a minute to put yourself into the shoes of someone who hasn't been an admin for fifteen years? Seriously, it's not envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think i fall into Valereee's category, i've been here since 2006 and am not an admin; much as i respect Valereee, and if she remembers i have told her so, i think that the kindness offered by Tony above is absolutely correct and neither unfair nor envy-generating. We have chosen to work as a community to build this incredible project; there is no reason not to behave as though each editor is an actual person to whom we would be kind in person, even though we will likely never meet them that way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @LindsayH, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid I can't agree that it's a good thing to actively encourage an editor with 200 edits over the past fifteen years to immediately start adminning again. And if they aren't going to immediately start doing adminny things, why do they need the toolset? Why not just, you know...encourage them to edit for a while? Get up to speed? Why can't we do that kindly? Valereee (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank Xaosflux for putting in the effort to make this happen in a timely manner. I'd also like to thank each and every one of those admins who's user-rights have been removed for their service to Wikipedia, and I would love to see them return to activity, making a difference to the project as they have done in the past. I'm sorry that HappyCamper feels hurt by the removal, but this simple activity requirement should hopefully help us move away from the "adminship for life" concept and towards "adminship while active" concept. It will allow us to see the levels of backlog that still exist, and give us confidence that the admins who are around are actively engaged with the community and how it has grown and developed.
  I do agree with TonyBallioni that upon returning to activity, HappyCamper should be reinstated, and with so many recent edits, they are definitely on the right path - let's be clear, they've made more edits over the past month than I have, and I'm a sitting Arb and a crat. @Valereee, I understand that you may have concerns about admins returning from inactivity - but that is a positive thing, these individuals have put in significant time to Wikipedia in the past, and can certainly adapt to the Wikipedia of the present. I have no doubt that every admin wants what's best for the project. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the root problem of Valereee's complaint is based in unfairness. If making 100 edits in 5 years was enough to pass RfA, we could just tell HappyCamper to file a fresh RfA. But it would get SNOW closed due to a lack of activity; why should somebody get the bit on a very low criteria just because they're been around longer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-activating the bit and passing RfA for the first time are totally different things, and having the same criteria for both is counterproductive. Why should an editor's previous experience as an admin count for nothing? What is unfair is that RfA is harder now than it was 15 years ago. Being mean to old-timers doesn't fix anything. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What Ritchie said. Most people here are looking at this from the point of view of an admin. We need to look at it from the point of view of an active non-admin who has made tens or hundreds of thousands of edits over the past fifteen years and has little chance of ever becoming an admin. And someone whose last 200 edits go back that same 15 years gets led by the hand back to the mop. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If what you are saying is different from "let's be mean to old-timers so the newbies we're being mean to at RfA won't be envious" it hasn't registered with me. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, first let's define newbie...would that be someone with, say, 13K edits, or not? Because the average "newbie" at RfA probably has 20K+, and this "old timer" has, um, 13K. Kusma, I don't think we should be mean to anyone. But I also don't think we should effectively be saying "Please, even though there's no actual evidence that you know what adminning even means any more, please please please take this mop back."

And I do not understand why it's "mean" of me to object to that. I think we need to be having this discussion, not pretending this issue doesn't exist or shouldn't be mentioned here. I feel like you're valuing the feelings of people who aren't actually contributing over those of people who are. I value these folks' past contributions. I think we should thank them for them. I'd like to see us handing out some sort of 'Admin Emeritus' designation. But we need to get our priorities straight: the vast numbers of active non-admins who do the actual heavy lifting around here are the people whose feelings we should be thinking about. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think most of them are not as driven by envy as you imply. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention envy, and I don't think it's envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Major difference. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you and some other vocal editors are disappointed with a sense of unfairness. I hesitate to extrapolate that feeling, though, to a consensus of the community at large. Although admittedly the sample size is very small, comments in the past for requests to reacquire administrative privileges have indicated that editors are willing to return privileges upon a resumption of editing activity. Regarding pointing editors to appropriate policy: if it were solely up to me, there's a lot of policy, procedures, and common practices that I would expect a potential admin to be able to find on their own. I realize, though, that my views are stricter than the community's as a whole. For better or worse (and to be honest, probably better), being patient in understanding that many editors heavily filter messages they receive is something the community supports. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from the practical issue that we need admins and RFA is not getting us enough new ones; A formerly active admin who returns to activity can be judged not on what they might do with the tools but on what they actually did with the tools. We are a volunteer community, if someone comes back after a long gap we should be welcoming whether their kids have flown the nest, they've had a divorce, their job has changed or they've moved back to part of the world where it is too cold and wet to be outside in the winter. The message should be "when you are back up to speed we'll return the tools" not "you are now as a newbie". ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. A former admin should be treated as someone who has already been vetted as trusted by the community. Now it's just a matter of showing they're once again experienced. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You and a few other "unfair!" people come across as so hostile and unwelcoming to returning ex-admins that I fully understand why they just leave again instead of earning this new experience in such a hostile place. If you don't mean to come across as hostile and unwelcoming, please try harder not to. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if I provided what I think would be better? Here's how the exchange could have gone:

• I feel hurt.
• Don't feel hurt, this is procedural. It's not a comment on your or on your past valuable contributions, it's purely because as someone who hasn't edited much in many years, you probably aren't as familiar as an admin needs to be with how things work here now.

I see you've started editing again in the past month. If you find you're really starting to get back into it to the point you've gotten yourself up to speed with everything that has changed over the past fifteen years since you were last really active, it's a simple matter of making a request. 'Crats just need to be convinced you have indeed become active again.

So that isn't hostile. It's not unwelcoming. But it's also not "Hey, doesn't matter that you haven't actually edited in fifteen yeas, all you have to do is ask!" Valereee (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is much better than what you said above, where you were hostile and unwelcoming to HappyCamper who had done nothing to deserve that. You do that quite regularly at this board, and you should stop doing it. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think what Chris Troutman said above was more blunt than Valereee. But with things like this, this and this, I can easily see where this opinion came from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting that none of those cases would have been desysopped under the new criteria - activity was not the problem in any of them. Worm^TT(talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Kusma, I believe someone needs to be pushing back against this idea that there is literally no level of inexperience that should give us pause in automatically restoring the toolset. I get it that I'm in the minority here, and I'm sorry to be pissing you off, we've worked together quite peaceably at DYK and I respect you and that your opinions differ from my own. But I am not going to stop saying it. I'm sorry also that you think it's the wrong place to say it, but I'm not sure there's a better place than to say it than where the problem happens. Which is here. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that's what the original message said. I feel that it could have better emphasized the community desire to have a returning former admin engage more with the project before requesting administrative privileges to be restored, but I realize not all comments will have perfect wording. (Just as I think many agree with aspects of some of your posts, but aren't happy with some of the wording.) isaacl (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, I suspect if you had started off by suggesting the language you gave above you wouldn't have multiple people negatively characterizing your participation in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That suggestion was for a rewording of Tony's original comment. But I've also revised my own. Valereee (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I live to serve. :) Valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a small comment: I suggest not telling others not to feel hurt in a situation such as this, as that often doesn't get received well. I think we are genuinely sorry for hurting anyone's feelings and understand why they feel that way, while at the same time, the community did not intend to pass judgement on anyone with the new procedure. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WTT, I am really trying not to turn myself into any more of a villain than I already am here, but don't you think it's a bit silly to compare last month's edits -- 12 vs. 25 -- when discussing your 25K, their 200 over fifteen years?

You know what? This is stupid. I'm sorry, clearly I am the only person concerned that someone with 200 edits over the past fifteen years would be encouraged to immediately request resysop. It's fine. Carry on. Valereee (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm late coming to this, but I do agree with you. Thirty-five edits last month after less than 300 edits since 2007 does not look like enough of a return to activity to assure me that HappyCamper is ready to get back the bit. Donald Albury 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There was an exhaustive RfC and people are being too nice to those unwilling to accept the results. Wikipedia works on the principle that problems are fixed after they occur—we don't take guesses regarding whether a former admin is sufficiently mature to resume admin activity. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• General musing since my initial comment seems to have sparked a lot of discussion: I was motivated to make it because of what I saw as a rude response to HappyCamper expressing the fact that the removal made them feel unvalued. I don't really appreciate kicking someone when they are down, even if the response is true, and so my typical response in real life as well as online is to try to redirect. Upon a quick review of their contributions, I saw that HappyCamper was beginning to return to activity, and like Worm That Turned I noticed that they had been more active than me in the month, and that they looked like they were maintaining activity even after removal. The standard for restoration of rights, which I'm going to go ahead and be a slight jerk and point out that I wrote as a way to make it harder for people to game the system, is that a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. To me, at first glance, a user returning to the level of activity that is higher than many respected admins on this projects who are less active now is pretty close to meeting that standard if not already at it. Given what I viewed as the rudeness expressed to them, and given the fact that the community has not yet set a standard higher than the intent to return to activity, I felt it reasonable to emphasize that this wasn't permanent to HappyCamper and that they could arguably ask for the bit back now (or very shortly.)
  On a more general theme: I agree with Primefac that the response here has been a bit disheartening. If our goal remains encouraging people to return to activity, this thread (not just the response to my initial post) has been disheartening. Who would ever want to return to a community where they're being told that they're entitled and that if they follow the policy as currently worded they're making others feel like they've been treated unfairly? I certainly wouldn't. That type of response also only serves to encourage the gaming that people say they're so opposed to: just make sure you don't fall below the threshold by making a bunch of random edits (not that hard to relist AfDs, block vandals, rollback poop edits, etc.) and disappear again for 6 months. That way you don't have to deal with people telling you how you shouldn't be asking for restoration when you ask for it.
  And last but not least, possible policy solutions for people who aren't satisfied with the current wording of the policy: you can change it so that the definition of returning to activity is the same as the definition for removal (100/60 months); you can remove the "intent to return" bit, which was written before the new removal criteria was added. Removing this would arguably do the same thing as defining activity strictly and might be easier to pass in an RfC; or you can move to make it so inactivity removals are permanent and people have to reapply at RfA, which is what other projects do and what I honestly think some people here want, but is unlikely to get community consensus. Regardless, proposing those at an RfC rather than the back and forth we've had here about whether or not we should be discouraging someone to seek reinstatement that they're theoretically entitled to is a better way forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  If the Wikipedian in question had made just 40 more edits in the past five years, this issue would not have arisen. That they did make 35 edits in December shows that they have returned, but, if they make less than another 36 edits this month (a total of 40 for the month), they will again fall short of criteria 2 at the end of the month. If they do make at least 40 edits this month, then they would only need to make a couple of edits a month thereafter to avoid triggering criteria 2 again. Perhaps it would be better to wait to see how active they are this month before offering the bit back. Donald Albury 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the intent of the inactivity policies is absolutely not to discourage admins from being more active. The intent of this new rule is simply to give a more accurate picture of how many active admins there actually are, and to remove the security/drama risk of having long-term, barely-active users with advanced permissions. It is not a punishment or a judgement on anyone as an individual.

  However, by the same token it is a bit odd to me to see a few admins only manifesting complaints now, when they were notified of this eight months ago, again three months ago, and again about a month ago. These notifications were done out of respect and courtesy, exactly in order to give these admins time to consider their options and chose their own path. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Law of unintended consequences. We hope to prompt admins who are inactive back into activity with these measures and our frequent messages to them. But actually if they're inactive, it's not because they've forgotten about Wikipedia, it's that they're lacking in love for it at the present, and I think the inactivity protocols are rather unlovely and therefore extremely unlikely to have the desired effect. For most, I reckon the best possible outcome would be some to do some token editing to pass whatever bar we have set - and that isn't a great outcome.

Wikipedia's main problem is and was its culture. People are too quick to be unkind, snappy, and (this coming from a bureaucrat) bureaucratic. RfA bad behaviours are symptomatic of more general ones. Unreasonable expectations of admins - that they have to be super experienced, super wonderful, rather than 'does this person exhibit behaviour that suggests that if we gave them the mop they'd follow policy and be pleasant and accountable.

The vanishing admin corps is going to become a huge problem at some point. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is never there. Anyone who has spent any time in the service industry knows your regulars will tell you why they came back but the people who leave do so for a variety of reasons: most of which you will never know. What Dweller speaks to is endemic and it does affect the sort of community you have, and not just in the corps. I should know, I use Wikipedia all the time as a resource, and (as my very sparse edit history shows) when I see things that need to be fixed I still have enough boldness to do so. And sometimes I even read though the dumpster fires that exist in the backend: at least the writing is better here then the rants posted to (other?) social media. Perhaps it was all the 'foolish hammering' that was at the root of it, perhaps it was always there and it has just been a slippery slope where the people who play the game the best persevere, I don't really know. But I suspect I'm not the only one who looks, with some level of pathos at where this project has ended up, who reads and watches and waits and wonders and hopes... Crazynas ^t 10:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Incoming requests at ACC requiring CU evaluation is extremely backlogged. Any and all help will be appreciated. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

---

First of all, I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post. All I know is that bureaucrats rank above administrators in the "WikiHierarchy".

When posting my opinion on English Wikipedia policy regarding administrators and the rules affecting them, the admin @Maile66 apparently felt so personally threatened by it that he INDEFINITELY blocked me under the ridiculous pretext of me being blocked for ONE SINGLE WEEK on the English Wiktionary – an in my opinion unjustified block I've appealed. Apparently I am not there to build an encyclopedia, even though I near 3000 edits, over 80% of which in articles.

This is the most poetic, the most symbolic argument in favor of holding admins to account for their actions, that I have ever seen. I'm not even sure if this request is correct, as a part of me believes Maile66 is a subtle genius trying to help me in my cause.

But in doubt, I have to request the competent people to take a look at this, and judge whether such impulsive behavior is worthy of someone with administrative privileges on the – by far – most consulted encyclopedia in the world. I wonder how many fellows have received such "treatment". And once again, this all because I posted in favor of a more direct procedure to hold admins to account for their actions... what is so foul that warranted me an indefinite block?

P.S. If this is not the right place, please move it to the right spot, instead of removing it. Thank you! Synotia (moan) 21:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia, you should cut and paste this to WP:ANI, which is the correct place for your complaint (to start with, at least). Izno (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope there will be no clannish defense. Synotia (moan) 21:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Usernamekiran (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 not much active lately, I might request for resysop in case my activity increases in near future. Thanks for all the fish, and co-operation. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Um, you're no, and have never been, an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pppery: he thinks he's being funny *sigh* SN54129 18:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Note the date ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)