Wikipedia talk:Administrators

History section

I have restored to the "history" section content removed here as "unsolicited opinion that deviates from Jimmy Wales' tenet". The section is about the history of the adminship role, not about Jimmy's tenet. The history of adminship did not stop in February 2003. :) Always open for discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite happy to agree. The "tenet" may have been true at the time, but at present it seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the nature of rank. Owning a gun may not be a big deal in some societies - unless you don't have one yourself, are occasionally confronted by those who do, and may be required to jump through difficult hoops to get one. Ben MacDui 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Elonka's addition of refs to ArbCom cases. ArbCom should be enforcing policy, not defining it. Putting links to ArbCom cases in policy implies that policy is defined by ArbCom rulings. --Surturz (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There's the possibility of confusion there. However, a case could be made that Arbcom rulings are effectively Case law on Wikipedia. Personally I don't think that actually captures it, though; the place to see the ongoing community rejection of WP:NOBIGDEAL is not at WP:RFAr, but WP:RFA. causa sui (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Since ArbCom is the body tasked with removing problematic administrators what they have to say regarding administrator conduct has teeth. There are also plenty of policies which link to or quote ArbCom decisions for illustration purposes. Hut 8.5 21:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, when I added the text we are talking about back in July, I had WP:RFA in mind, not WP:RFAr. causa sui (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators open to recall

Was there ever any administrator actually recalled via the, "Administrators open to recall" process? It seemed to me on first read, that such processes are actually iron clad against the possibility of an actual recall. Unless circumstances are such that the community would take the bit away anyway because the uproar is so great.

So is there a list of any past successful recalls and the criteria which was used? Hobartimus (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that list is really helpful, it seems people really do use widely differing criteria for a recall. Hobartimus (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When can an administrator become involved?

"... an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area"

It seems that disruptive users often pull out WP:INVOLVED concerning any admin who has interacted with them. When does discussion with a user, and urging to follow wikipedia policies, make an admin involved? What if an admin takes incorrect administrative actions? For example, if an admin A has had blocks of user U overturned, is there any point where A can be viewed as having a conflict of interest or considered involved with regard to U? Would the admin be prevented from administrating? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For how long is one elected an admin

Hi, I have just a question. For how long is one elected an admin: for a certain period of time or "for ever"? --vacio 10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Adminship doesn't expire, it's more like a driving licence than an elected position. There are ways to remove adminship though. Hut 8.5 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

End time comes to mind ;-) Also note that in many countries driving licenses do expire. Apparently, I will lose the right to steer 12 ton trucks in 2017 (which is fine, since I only got it by some strange remixing of German and European vehicle categories to begin with). However, I will still be allowed to drive a 2.5 ton limousine into a group of innocent school children when I'm 120... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oke, I see it now, thanks! --vacio 11:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL .. Stephan and Hut .. you guys are funny. I always thought it was more of this kind of license. :-) ...

Vacio, until recently when an editor was granted the admin. rights, it was pretty much considered for life. (short of making a major screw-up). A few months ago it was decided that if an administrator was inactive for more than a year, then that account had the rights removed. If however, that person came back, then they could request the extra tools be returned. Now if an administrator shows some really bad judgment, then sometimes people go to what we call the Arbitration Committee, where a group of elected folks can decide that the administrator has messed up so bad that the extra tools are taken away from them. Hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  13:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Until the heat death of the universe, assuming Wikipedia goes off-planet in time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a stat anywhere that shows the average duration of admins' tenures? Ben MacDui 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a published statistics on this. But, overall, very few Admins are resigned, and very few resign voluntarily. I think the most frequent case is that they just slowly petter out, but still keep the tools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship. There have been a few admins who voluntarily requested that their admin rights be revoked. Some of those later applied for them to be restored. I know of no list of those: but I do know that in order for the rights to be restored, some of them had to go through WP:RFA just like anybody who had never been an admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And we now have a procedure for dealing with inactive administrators although I don't have the link handy. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators. Re Stephan Schulz's comment, I agree, but given the relatively short time the 'pedia has existed and the rate of attrition I'd guess that 3 years or so might be the average. Ben MacDui 16:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The link Dougweller mentioned is Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I add another Chris Marsden

Hi there!

Currently there is only one Chris Marsden and he is a footballer.....I on the other hand am I successful radio and TV voiceover artist and broadcaster!

How does one get my info placed upon the World of Wiki?

I am mentioned on the Famous people of Worksop page, but then it directs people to the footballer? I don't want to edit his page, but to add my own!

Prey tell, as it looks all a bit too much for me?

Cheers

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Marsden (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you posted an identical question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Biography question. Per WP:MULTI and the notice at the top of this page ("This talk page is not the place to post questions for or ask for help from administrators"), I think all the discussion should be on that page, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Salary

Do administrators get paid a salary?Theanonymous3 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No. They contribute to Wikipedia just as any other user. --vacio 18:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No salary. We're all volunteers.--Aervanath (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Could be an April Fool's RfC... Ben MacDui 19:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, I guess that some places out east have already ticked over into 1 April. Right here in the UK though, it's now 21:03 31 March. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of {{uninvolved}} for ITNR discussions

I have just made some proposals at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items to require admin closure of discussions that are not clear-cut. In view of the comparative lack of activity required a separate category of discussions requiring adjudication seems inappropriate - we are only talking about one or two discussions a month. I've therefore suggested we use {{uninvolved}} instead. If you foresee any problems or issues with that please comment there to avoid fragmenting the discussion, although it may be useful context to note if you arrived there from here. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hardie

Can we please have action regarding Jim Hardie who is a blatant sockpuppet of BlackJack. Evidence - Jim Hardie has made over a hundred edits to pre=1800 cricket since 18th Feb whem user BlackJack 'retired'. No other editor has made these type of edits except Blackjack - these being tidying of references etc. He has attacked the entries of another editor using the same language, the same phrases, the same inside knowledge that was used when BlackJack was previously identified as an aggressive sockpuppet some time ago. He has used 'pretend' conversations between himself and Blackjack in a manner seen previously when he was using BartMaverick, Orrelly Man, JamesJJames sockpuppets. To summarise - Hardie has been active since Blackjack went silent - he edits the same esoteric edits using the same turns of phrase - attacks other editors in the same manner and has used similar expresions found on the BlackJack Midnight Rambler and Stumpsite website. Jim Hardie is blackjack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Please note the attack made (filed under the old sockpuppet investigation) on Cricket the Golden Age by BJ and the one on Cricket 194044 by JM. It;'s as plain as when you see that.

This should be taken to WP:SPI, not here.--Aervanath (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

VANDALIZED "PROTECTED" ARTICLES

Wikipedia administrators have protected articles which are clearly vandalized. What to do when the administrators themselves are vandalizing an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Post at WP:ANI. Aervanath (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfc potentially affecting this policy

Please note that there is an ongoing Rfc which could affect the contents of this policy. The Rfc is located at: Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to clarify the requirement to declare involvement after off-wiki canvassing

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Requirement for declaring an interest after off-wiki canvassing with regard to how those with trusted tools may be required to make an open declaration of being involved if taking any action relating to that prior canvassing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical detail

Just for technical correctness, about this addition: is it in fact true that admins can move a page over a redirect with history? I thought the existing page (whether it's a redirect with history, or a non-redirect) first had to be deleted - the admin's enhanced ability to perform moves is only a derivative of their ability to perform deletions. Am I right? Victor Yus (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

When you go for the "Move" tab, the form initially has three checkboxes:

Move associated talk page

Leave a redirect behind

Watch source page and target page

If you attempt to move the page over a page with history (whether it's currently a redirect or not), upon clicking Move page, you get a warning message:

You also get a fourth checkbox:

Yes, delete the page

aand the button changes to Delete and move.

Here is an example of where I moved a page over a redirect with history in the above manner. The bottom entry - the G6 deletion - was not done as a separate operation, but as an automatic part of the page move process once I had clicked Delete and move. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's clear. I'll try to edit the page again so as not to mislead. Victor Yus (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User inquiry

Is that guy Felix Stember an administrator on the English Wikipedia? Fuß C-18 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, he is not: Special:UserRights/Felix_Stember.Aervanath (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He's got 3 edits in 2012 so far, the most recent in April. Is there something we can help you with? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

When editing this page, at the top, it clearly says "PLEASE NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for or ask for help from administrators. For questions, go to Wikipedia:Questions." Therefore, shouldn't this discussion be moved accordingly, and amended so that the user name is not placed in the header? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've refactored the heading. The user making the request cross posted it pretty much everywhere, to similar response. I asked for more info and got nothing, so we're done here I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit to transcluded page

I just edited Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse of tools section, which shows up on this page via transclusion. Please review if you want. Victor Yus (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"including long term experienced editors"

Are these words necessary (in the first bullet point in the intro)? Doesn't "user accounts and IP addresses" cover all cases, long-term and experienced or otherwise? Victor Yus (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course they do, but this is the key and most controversial aspect of the powers given to administrators. It needs to be explicitly stated, and not tucked away as a logical inference one could make if one happens to think of it. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced so many words are necessary (it ends up sounding a bit like axe-grinding). Maybe just "block any editor" would be enough? Victor Yus (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No it would not. When you have been here longer yourself, you will start to see how serious the issues are with admins, sometimes little more than schoolboys or with almost no experience contributing content, blocking highly experienced content editors without even a minimal appreciation of the pressures that are (increasingly) on placed on them (often by admins). --Epipelagic (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This bit doesn't belong in the lead. The bullet points in question are meant to be a simple, clear explanation of the main technical powers possessed by admins. The addition looks like simple axe-grinding. Hut 8.5 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course that bit belongs in the lead. How could you possibly think otherwise, unless you are trying to suppress the most salient and controversial technical power that is granted to admins? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're trying to suppress it, it just ought to be clear from what's already said, and sounds odd to refer to it specifically. If you think there's a problem with admin behavior (which may well be the case), it won't be in any way solved by including these words in that place in the policy. Victor Yus (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suppress anything. Before you changed it the lead already said that administrators have the power to block user accounts. That's what the technical power is. It sounds as though you're trying to change this policy in order to reflect your own personal grievances with administrators. Hut 8.5 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed, and I've reverted it per BRD. It's obvious that any editor, from 1 edit to 1 million edits, can be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Jimbo Wales can be blocked. But you better have a goshdarned good reason for doing so. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't been involved in this discussion but looking at the recent history, from MF's last revert to the present, changes have been made to the policy, and they don't seem to be in line with what people think (based on my reading of the above dispute). For example, it used to say "block other editors" as the penultimate bullet point, and now it says "block user accounts and IP addresses from editing" as the first bullet point. I thought Doug was attempting to put the page back to the way it was. Perhaps I've misread the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, probably I should have done that. Not doing it wasn't deliberate. But I'm tired and off to bed now and don't want to edit policyh tired! Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed it and restored it back to before this discussion. Whether the policy should be changed and, if so, needs to reach a consensus here first. You can look at it again when you're refreshed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• You haven't " restored it" to the original state of the article at all. This is outright suppression of the actual position --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do you always phrase your comments that way? Not particularly collaborative. Between June 14 and July 4, there were no edits to the policy. The first edits on July 4 canceled themselves out and had nothing to do with the discussion here, but were to another part of the policy. The first edit relevant to this discussion was Victor's. I restored the policy to before that edit. I think you should wait for Doug to return to see if that reflects what he wished to do (not to mention Hut), meaning there was no consensus for Victor's and subsequent changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any objection to any of my changes other than the rephrasing of the point about blocking? If not (and I don't see any reason why there should be), then the changes can be restored, but with the blocking point put back to its previous wording. In fact I don't really like the way the lead is structured now, with the immediate bullet points; I would move these points to a section in the text and make the lead more like it was some time ago, just running text, including the admins' main tools as examples of their capabilities. Victor Yus (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point I think we should start discussing your proposed changes rather than just replace them. I'm not objecting to them, just seeking consensus. And would you like to draft a version of your proposed lead (I should have looked to see why this was changed before writing this!). Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead in this version was closer to what we want. (I'm not saying we shouldn't have a bulleted list, just that it should be moved down into the text.) But I also think it's quite important to mention admins' conventional status, not purely as owners of accounts with certain technical abilities, but also as trusted assessors of discussion results. This might be a bit more fuzzy and in some ways controversial, but there's no denying that it's a significant element of the role that admins do play in our community. Victor Yus (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss one thing at a time. I don't agree the lead in that version reflects the Community view; if anything, that version is misleading as administrators have the technical ability to block themselves too - not just "other editors" (even though WMF really should have prevented the ability to block one self long ago). Also, administrators have the ability to block IP users, even if edits have not been made by a particular person on a particular IP address. For example, a dynamic IP sometimes warrants a block on a particular range, but there can be collateral damage too, and some of the blocked persons cannot even yet be considered "editors" as such. Given the serious level of prevention/disruption that can be caused through this tool (as it directly affects contributors from contributing anywhere on the project rather than a particular page/discussion), it is considered among the more serious tools used by administrators. I don't see any reason why it should be downplayed and not listed as the first tool of a list. But in saying that, I also don't see what the statement "including long term experienced editors" adds overall as administrators have also been blocked for their conduct occasionally (which, unfortunately, ought not to be necessary). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The issues you mention were largely dealt with by my edits of yesterday, which someone saw fit to reverse without explanation (ah, but such is life on any Wikipedia page with the misfortune to be marked as a "policy"). I'm not saying the version I mentioned is perfect, just that it's more the layout I would expect - a general introduction to the topic, not an immediate attempt to list in detail everything that admins can do. Victor Yus (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we're losing sight of what the lead is meant to do. It's supposed to be a short introduction to the position of administrator for a new editor who hasn't encountered it before. Items in the list of tools ought to be ranked according to how frequently people encounter them, not according to whether experienced editors think something is dangerous or controversial. The lead as written at the moment has several serious problems: pages can be protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism, pages other than articles can be protected, the explanation of moving pages to any title isn't very clear (and I don't think that this tool should have such a prominent position), and unblocking and unprotection are not listed even though undeletion is. I do think that blocking ought to be listed higher, not because it's considered especially important but because it's encountered frequently. Hut 8.5 13:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, all the errors you identified in the present lead were addressed by my edits of the day before yesterday. The only reason they are still there is because we have this moronic idea in our collective mind that if a page is marked "policy" or "guideline", then its wording is so sacred and perfect that any potential changes to it need to be discussed at great length, and are thus uncritically reverted if there's even a whiff of some disagreement about some aspect of them. Hence crap remains, even when someone's made the effort to eliminate it. Victor Yus (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Special situations

I'm not sure if anybody reads this talk page, but to whoever does: what are your views on this revert, the "AE actions" paragraph, and the closing paragraph (intended to explain why these seemingly arbitrary exceptions exist)? It is indisputable that AE actions are not open to immediate reversal, and are a special case, so I'm not sure why that was reverted. Nevertheless, I would be pleased to read proposals for better wording for the AE and closing paragraph. Thanks, AGK [•] 16:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the revert inadvisable, in that administrators will be held to AE expectations regardless of how (or that) they're discussed on the this page. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to the presence of the AE paragraph per se, I just think we need to work out a clearer way to word it before trying to add it here. The closing paragraph I don't think is helpful at all, but an alternative might be better. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

fewer people interested in adminship these days?

Back when I became admin in September 2005, getting the "mop" seemed to be the big thing. There were always several RfAs going on at once, and we were promoting one user to admin every day on average. The number of new admins peaked per year peaked at 408 for 2007. However, we've only gotten 20 new admins this year so far, and the RfA page is pretty empty most of the time. Is there any explanation for this? I understand that adminship is not a big deal, but the decline in users seeking adminship compared to the previous years is a bit shocking, to say the least. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is often discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I suggest you examine the archives and make any further posts there. I haven't followed the discussions closely but I think a common argument is that expectations have become higher and RfA's have become more hostile so many editors refrain from requesting the mop. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think another reason is that additional user rights (such as file mover and account creator) are making adminship unnecessary for many people, although I could be wrong. Still, it seems that many people aren't interested in adminship because there's too much politics. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

From someone who recently went through the gauntlet, and a user w/file mover and account creator, it seems to me that the frequencies of new RfA's is proportional to the registered users activity level and the projects activity level as a whole which also makes me wonder if a future run would be worth it. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At my RfA, several of the neutral/oppose votes were accompanied by comments along the lines of "you don't have very much XFD experience". Yet I have recently seen some non-admins being warned to stay away from XFD (and WP:PERM). It's like a closed shop: you can't get a job without a union card, but you can't get a union card unless you already have a job. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does remind me of a few situations in life, like Credit. . Mlpearc (powwow) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of the tools (proposal)

Should the removal of the admin userright for inactivity or by voluntary request be made permanent after 12 months? MBisanz ^talk 20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Given recent discussion, I'm proposing the policy be changed in the manner shown in this diff. It will provide a one year period of time following the date of a voluntary or inactive desysop for the user to seek resysopping. After one year, it will become a permanent desysop and the user must seek approval at RFA. Prior to this proposal being made effective, all users at WP:FORMER who resigned or were removed for inactivity must be notified and given the opportunity to request restoration of the tools. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that someone who hasn't edited for over a year probably (most likely) doesn't need to re-appear just to block someone, delete a page or protect one. I also believe that notification of the desysop should be through all available channels, i.e. talk page and email where applicable, and that it is communicated at least twice before desysop. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought emails were sent out already as part of the existing policy? Also, hmm, while I have no objections to the proposed change, I think this is a very significant change, and that we should look for wide community approval of it, as the RfC probably would have not passed had this provision been in there at the time, I would say. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy, guidelines and technology change. We don't vet admins for a "general aptitude" to be an admin; we vet them for specific knowledge of existing policies, guidelines and tools as demonstrated by their editing history and answers to questions. Somebody who has been away from WP for more than a year can reasonably be thought of as being no longer in touch with our current policies, conventions and technology (scripts, code, interface and so on). A new RFA would be in order. I would agree with more extensive notification before the desysop process, and perhaps an automated reminder toward the end of the one-year period. Churn and change (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think this is too much of a reaction to one very specific case. Part of what I understood to be the expectation when I was resysopped after over 2 years was that I would re-read the policies and familiarize myself with any changes in convention or policy. Why not make that expectation spelled out clearly in the policy and leave the timeframe open to be decided on a case-by-case basis? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What point in "spelling out clearly" what cannot be enforced? A new RFC enforces the "re-reading of policies and understanding of new conventions." There is the question of whether a returning sysop can indeed pick up the new way, since we don't vet sysops on general aptitude, but on specific knowledge and actions proving such knowledge. Churn and change (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I made a proposal a while back on a benchmark number of edits and actions combined an administrator should probably perform (I think I suggested 50 edits and actions combined). It was shot down based on our existing policy of 1 edit a year to show your activity is enough if you were competent to be administrator once before. I still disagree with that point, but that's what the previous majority felt was accurate. I would support inactive administrators having to go back through the process of gaining adminship again if they wanted it after two years of being away. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think one year is short, and is too big a change from no limit for the first step, especially for some of the older users.

Suggest: Removal of the admin userright for inactivity or by voluntary request be made permanent when the account has been inactive for longer than it was active. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Time moves fast on the net, but a year is short enough that you can reasonably expect an admin to be fairly up to date. I'd start worrying after two years of inactivity, and would certainly think that four years is too long. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Every time these sorts of discussions come up, someone notes that it will adversely affect those in the military who may be sent out of country. Or anyone else subject to other such real life considerations. So I would Oppose the current text. But I think I could support if it was: 2 years after the removal (which was done after 1 year of no edits whatsoever). So that's a total of 3 years of zero edits to the encyclopedia. I think that could could be seen as fair. I just am hesitant because I don't want this to be the slippery slope of "give them an inch..."  : ) - jc37 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I agree to the principal here, and think 1+1 years is correct for those who have stopped editing totally, however not so sure about it working in all cases take as an example the case of an admin who gives up the admin bit NOT under a cloud for reasons unrelated to WP, as s/he feels for some reason they don't have the time to divot to admin duties however they continue to edit then 18 months later they feel they can step back up, they probably should be allowed. In summary how about something along the lines of "If at any time after the admin bit is removed the editor is absent (as defined by not making an edit) for a year or longer then the option to request reinstatement outside a RfA expires. Mtking ^(edits) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Reading the posts on BN, it looks like one of the stumbling blocks is that 'crats haven't been given the authority to use their discretion; it's a simple "Is it the same guy/did he resign tools under a cloud", which provides little leeway. Maybe it's too much of a responsibility for an admittedly small group of editors, but can we just grant them the ability to use their discretion in these cases? More specifically, I'd propose that, a year after the inactivity-deadminning, 'crats are authorized to use their discretion on whether a former admin should have another run at RfA, and then past, say, two years, the reRfA becomes mandatory? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  While that doesn't sound awful on the surface, what happens if one bureaucrat says no, and another says yes? - jc37 01:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  I guess the same thing that happens anytime any other pair of editors disagree: they hash it out on the talk page. Or whatever happens when two 'crats disagree about the closure of an RfA (which I think is still talking about it on the talk page, right?). Still more lightweight than another RfA, which is kinda my idea. I mean, I guess we could put something to the effect of "x number of crats have to sign off on a reRfA demand", but given how small the group of 'crats are, and perhaps ironically given the name, that strikes me as a little unnecessarily bureaucratic. After all, this is probably going to remain an edge case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Well, atm (with the current situation in mind) apparently, once one flips the switch, it can't be unflipped. And if we suggest it can, then we would be starting the potential for bureaucrat wheel-warring. Unless there is a clear DR process for opposed flipping of the switch in such cases, I think that this has too much potential for contention and disruption. - jc37 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'd hope that we choose our 'crats better than that (and there's always Arbcom), but point taken. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Policy knowledge is not what is important in being a good administrator. What's important is judgement, and there's no reason to think that will change significantly while an editor is away from Wikipedia. Besides, I've observed multiple occasions where currently active admins were weak on specific nuances of policy; the solution is education, not removal of privilege. Nobody Ent 02:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment one of the issues involved here is that the longer an account is dormant, the greater the chance that someone will have been able to hack it. Administrator accounts are valuable and public, and this was part of the reason for removing inactive administrator accounts' privileges in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I think allowing us to use our discretion in borderline cases per the suggestion by Writ Keeper would be good. When restrictions on doing something like this are too strict, it can result in situations such as the one which prompted this: while a strict interpretation of the policy requires that someone's bit be returned, taking into account something which wasn't necessarily directly related to the desysopping might cause a different decision to be made. I agree that an admin who has been gone for over a year (or maybe two) won't be up-to-speed on current policies and guidelines. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Soft oppose Unless the re-sysopping of such desysopped admins is through a simpler procedure or through an easier percentage requirement at an RfA, one should perhaps not make the desysopping permanent. That does not mean that we shouldn't do the necessary diligent checks on whether or not any recently active former administrator's account is compromised. Wifione ^Message 06:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support but if this fails, what if we set this at something ridiculous, like three years? That would be a net gain. I remember a while back an inactive admin trying to request sysop who was last active in 2002. --Rschen7754 08:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The administrator shouldn't lose their rights if they have a serious consideration in their life, such as death of a family member, or being sent to war. I think once an admin, always an admin. Vacation⁹ 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for various reasons, but in particular per Nobody Ent. We should welcome back people with clue with open arms, not put them off returning. The problem currently at BN that prompted this is the continuing lack of clarity of "under a cloud", which this proposal does not address. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment under a cloud means different things to different people - to crats and admins it means "you weren't caught red-handed deleting the entire Wikipedia while strangling Jimbo's cat", to the rest of us something else. DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Nobody Ent. Good judgement is far more important than rote policy knowledge, and good judgement shouldn't be expected to expire. I would much rather deal with an administrator – or any editor – who knows when he is in over his head and seeks guidance, than an individual who has all the policy documents memorized and applies them blindly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose admins are selected based on their ability to have good judgement. Not specifically on exact knowledge of every policy/guideline on the wiki. Good judgement can't be expected to expire. If we trusted them before we should still trust them to reread up on policies when they return if they need it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Good judgement requires a basis of sound knowledge. Without that basis, however decent or well-intentioned someone is, they will make egregious errors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Right but if they have good judgement they will know to go and read up on any relevant policies before making a decision and will thus have the basis of sound knowledge. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Only if they know that they don't know something. Most people (and in my experience admins are remarkably like people in this matter) don't do that. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) Fortunately, the basics of Wikipedia haven't changed much since it was founded. An administrator from five years ago would still know that he can block a vandalism-only account (and the definition of vandalism hasn't changed appreciably in that time), or delete on sight a newly-created article that just says Timmy Jones is teh gay.

  Granted, an admin from five years ago wouldn't know the ins and outs of closing, say, an AfD discussion; I imagine the templates and details of that process have undergone at least a couple of iterations of changes since then (though the essence and outcomes of the process aren't much different). To my mind, 'good judgement' doesn't mean that a long-absent admin would somehow magically know which templates and transclusions to use to close an AfD—rather, 'good judgement' means that that long-absent admin would know to participate in the process for a little while before closing anything, to read the closure instructions carefully, and to check out some other recently-closed AfDs before diving back in to do it himself. As I said in my original comment, it comes down to knowing what one doesn't know, and doing one's homework before one strays beyond the limits of that knowledge.

  Of course, we're dancing around the actual reason that you're here in this discussion (and that we're having this discussion right now). The 'crats have been uniformly unwilling to step beyond their community-imposed mandate, so that despite your vigorous lobbying at WP:BN, you haven't been able to secure from them a retroactively-applied finding of an "under a cloud" departure by Polarscribe. This proposed policy change would allow you to permanently desysop any past admin with whom you've had a dispute, without requiring any finding of wrongdoing and without requiring you to go through any sort of proper channels—albeit at the cost of throwing out every other good admin with the bathwater. In other words, you're not really concerned about a departed admin losing their good judgement during a protracted absence; this is about trying to eliminate admins you thought never had good judgement in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that I ever did have a dispute with Polarscribe before. I was concerned that he was re-syssopped without crats being aware of the circumstances of his leaving - something I only looked into after the thread had been popping up on my watchlist for a couple of days. I'm not, despite your claim, out to de-sysop any admin with whom I've had a dispute - not even you, TOAT. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, one expects that people coming back after many years would fresh up on policies, but that's so often not the case, as we've seen in the past and in more recent events. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I have objected to resop requests on the crat talkpage, users returning after three, four years and some with a degree of controversy in their history should not be able to return unquestionable to a position of authority here - requesting such returnees to ask the community if they still support them in such a position is a reasonable position. reasonable. - Youreallycan 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Are there specific examples of people requesting the tools back after years of absence, and then making a mess of it? If not, I don't quite see the practical necessity of considering the question.  Sandstein  15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • One springs to mind immediately - the admin was eventually banned. Not going to post his username as I understand ArbCom have good reasons for wanting it kept out of the public eye. DuncanHill (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • My memory was slightly at fault, in that case the admin retired while blocked and then got the tools on a new account by asking the crats, so it wasn't an inactivity de-sysop (althought there was a significant period of inactivity). DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) You might want to be a little more specific about how you define 'making a mess of it', because I suspect your broad phrasing is going to get a bunch of 'did something I disagreed with' or 'did something I can frame as a gotcha as long as nobody looks into details' anecdotes. Perhaps a better question would be—how many specific examples are there of admins resysopped after more than a year's absence who have been subsequently desysopped (or signficantly restricted in their tool use) by any Wikipedia process, or who have resigned 'under a cloud'? (And, incidentally, how does that compare to the total number resysopped under the current policy?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Support "Policy knowledge is not what is important in being a good administrator" Seriously? Next time there's a bunfight with an IP, we now have to spend time educating the administrator too? Yes, judgement is crucial, but only if people know what they're supposed to be doing in the first place! Absence from the project means people are out of touch with changes in how things are done and the standards that constantly change and evolve. Coming back after a gap of five or ten years and expecting to be given the mop again is too much. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I also wonder how many of those voting for the oppose are admins. A show of hands for complete clarity would be good, if only to avoid the simile of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas… - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  To really be on point, if you want to deal with a perceived conflict of interest then we should exclude every vote up above from an ex-admin who hasn't edited Wikipedia for at least two years. We also need to eliminate the comments from any admin who might take a break of at least two years at some point in the future. We must of course strike the comments of every individual above who might at some point in the future consider applying for adminship. Finally, we should discount the remarks of any person who plans to ask an administrator for assistance – blocking vandals or edit warriors, deleting spam pages, etc. – in the next few weeks, because their vote here could be taken as an attempt to curry favor among the admin corps. (Seriously, what's with this ugly us-versus-them admins-aren't-real-editors attitude?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Eh? I'm not sure how you've managed to read that into the paragraph and I'm sorry that you've decided to interpret it that way. I was asking for some clarity to avoid future accusations. As to the "us v them", this has nothing to do with editors, it has to do with the return of admin tools to people who may no longer be immediately suitable for the task. To ask them to undertake a short spell editing before the mop is returned is not a bad thing, no reflection on them and certainly nothing to do with an entirely absent "us v them" attitude. Ultraexactzz identifies the source of the issue below, he's right: someone has been given their tools back who shouldn't have been. They left under a cloud when they edit warred in '08 and attempted to justify 3RR violations with "but I was in the right". They then retired before the ANI was brought to a conclusion and recently came back: their first set of edits are edit warring, with the justification of "but I was in the right". I had to tell him to stop his ad hominem comments on the first two ocassions I came across him. His mop was returned on the basis that "policy is policy" before all the circumstances were looked into and the 'crats returned his tools because that is what the flawed procedures outline as the course of action. If those procedures had been different, if they had been able to allow common sense to be used then there wouldn't be a rather admin with a questionable approach wondering round who is four years out of date with his interpretation of the rules. I have to have ongoing continuing professional development to keep up with my job and if I left for four year (actually only a year) then I'd need a refresher to rejoin: I don't see the lack of need here either. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this discussion isn't the place to arbitrate a four-year-old situation, but you have a significant number of facts wrong, starting with the fact that there was never a consensus at the time that my (admittedly improper) action should result in desysopping, in part because it was recognized that when faced with clear community opposition, I self-reverted the improper deletion and disengaged from the conflict entirely. I did not resign the bit under a cloud, the 'crats opined that nothing in the ANI thread can be reasonably construed as consensus to desysop and there was never a process-based determination that my conduct merited desysopping. The bit was removed solely through inactivity. I've responded to this three or four times now in three or four different places, and I've said my piece. polarscribe (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are no incorrect facts in what I have written. I said that you left under a cloud after edit warring. I never connected it with your desysopping, which was undertaken because you were inactive for a total of four years. My point is that you are unsuitable to be given any powers because your last two sets of interactions breached the very rules you were supposed to be safeguarding and I think that if the sysopping rules were a little more flexible (ie to be able to re-examine an editors suitability to have power once again) that would be a solution greatly to be welcomed. It's just a shame you won't do the honourable thing and voluntarily drop your lifelong "right" to powers and go through an ANI. I suspect you know how that will turn out and are too afraid to go through the scrutiny. It's shameful conduct that could have been avoided it the rules had not been flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have no "lifelong 'right' to powers." The community granted me the tools and they have never been removed for cause. That I am not complying with your wish that I undergo even further scrutiny is neither here nor there. Now I really have said my piece. polarscribe (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, as per WP:REDACT, please do not edit your comments after others have responded. Secondly, your attitude towards others, your inability to listen to the wishes of a significant number of people that you go once again through the RfA and your lack of care you seem to have shown reading the comments of others (shown by your mis-reading of my comments above) are simply not good enough. People turn to admins when they have a problem and I suggest that you are so poorly equipped to deal with situations that arise, you will soon find yourself answering calls at ANI through your actions. Personally I find your approach somewhat shameful and it casts a pall over the image of other admins, who deserve better. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• What's a "significant number of people" requesting it? Five or ten? That's not a community consensus in any sense of the phrase. I have offered apologies for the four-year-old misstep. I am quite sure that if I again abuse the tools, ArbCom will see that as a pattern of misuse and desysop me for cause and if that happens, then I have none but myself to blame. You are among a small group seemingly hell-bent on hounding me at each and every opportunity, one of whom (not you) went so far as to falsely accuse me of abusing the tools yesterday. If you have a case to make that I should be desysopped for cause, there is a process for doing that and I shall answer to it. Now I'm going to stop taking this page off-topic. polarscribe (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Errmmmm... I've commented on a proposal that rules should be changed. You decided to comment on a reply I made to someone else, which was not about having you stripped of any powers, but provided background as to why the procedures, as they are currently constituted are flawed, in my opinion. I hardly see that as being "hell-bent on hounding" you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The situation that generated this discussion came about because an admin lost their tools through inactivity, asked for them back, got them back because they did not appear to have been under a cloud when they left, and then whoops - seems that they abused their tools before they left, and maybe were under a cloud after all. They should have gone through an RFA and did not. Now they have their tools, and won't turn them back in to go to RFA, and DRAMA. Bad cases make bad case law. Beyond that, it's bothersome to think that editors who were told they could get tools back on simple request would now have to go through an RFA - many who do return would likely not bother. Far better to have the crats make sure the former admin is up to speed before restoring tools after a long absence - making it sunset after a period of time is not reasonable or equitable. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be easier to just say that if bureaucrats discover that recently returned admin tools which were returned to an editor with a presumption of not being "under a cloud", which are subsequently discovered to have possibly actually been "under a cloud", there is no problem with bureaucrats immediately removing said tools while discussion progresses as to whether an additional RfA is necessary? (This also would seem to follow the general philosophy of "preventative not punitive" : ) - jc37 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  I would be inclined to suggest that we handle this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis. Looking at the most recent archive of BN, I'm seeing ten requests for reinstatement of flags spread over four months, only a few of which were for long-dormant accounts, and none of which revealed any clouds (though there was one case where concern was expressed about the length of absence). Trying to write a policy to thoroughly and appropriately respond to every specific, unique circumstance that might arise in the (perhaps) two or three cases per year where there may be an issue is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

  What's the worst-case scenario? A 'cloudy' former admin gets the bit back. They go insane and delete AN/I. The masses rejoice temporarily, and then someone (either a 'crat, a member of ArbCom, or some other senior functionary) turns off the bit again. AN/I is undeleted. The 'crats spend more time examining the next few resysop requests. Life goes on.

  What happens in an 'edge' case where the 'crats are deadlocked, or where the admin's 'cloudy' past isn't discovered for a while? Well, first we get a storm on BN or AN/I. If it's blindingly obvious that the 'crats have dropped the ball, then they'll exercise common sense (probably with some calm, collected, rational, off-wiki communication) and pull the bit and the mess will be done. Failing that, within 24 (probably within 6) hours someone will file an Arbitration request. A few members of the ArbCom will make their usual pointless snap responses that the community should decide the issue, before ultimately agreeing to handle the case by motion. The ArbCom can ask for a temporary desysop if necessary. Arguments for and against the admin's 'cloudiness' will be presented. ArbCom will vote on a motion to desysop (or to compel a fresh RfA, or what have you) and the matter will be settled in a week or two.

  In either circumstance, the matter gets resolved. Rewriting WP:ADMIN isn't necessary; one of the above processes will handle things. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can we please have a list of all the users resyopped by the crats under this policy - so we can investigate what they returned to do etc? I have asked the crats for this previously but they replied they do not keep a specific record or list - its in the archives I was told -This one requested and got his tools back in 2011 (I objected on grounds of length of time and minimal contributions...I said at the time under my Off2riorob contributions, "I oppose this users resyopping - he isn't contributing at all and he has made one admin action in the last five years" See the users logs- resyopping is of no benefit at all to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)) ....and he made only four or five minor edits since - the user has only fifty all space edits back since 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lord_Voldemort - Ask yourselves - why did he want his tools back? - and ask yourselves - what was the benefit to the project in the crats returning this users advanced permissions ~ as you can see in the diff I provided, in the thirteen months since he asked for, and was given his advanced permissions back he did not even use them once. Youreallycan 07:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  There is no policy requirement that admins use their tools. There is no limit to the number of administrators that can be active, so there is nothing lost to the project by returning the bit. More people should have the bit, not fewer. polarscribe (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  As I outlined, that user is not active at all - This is worth a read in regards to your recent disputed resyopping - User_talk:Dr._Blofeld - Youreallycan 04:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, tentatively. I'd much rather see it be a "permanent" desysop instantly, in the same way as Commons or Meta where a new RFA is required. (And those project have significantly higher inactivity standards.) If you haven't even made an edit in a year, much less two or three, you need to go through RFA after spending some time getting up to speed; the project one returns to is entirely different than the one that was left. Courcelles 20:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think creating a policy such as this would be discouraging to reliable editors and would be detrimental to editor retention. A good editor/sysop who returns after an extended leave due to real life might be so discouraged by the fact that they have to do a new RfA that they would just not return to editing. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What the project needs is more admin and more users not to invent more ways to discourage former admins and users from contributing to the project. If there are genuine examples of abuse of the resysopping rules than we should look at the evidence rather than rely on assertion or be put off from examining the situation because arbcom was involved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't see anything in the above to suggest that returning editors have caused any problem. I sympathise with the position outlined by Courcelles, but such is the current state of RfA that I can't see anyone without the hide of a rhinoceros bothering. It is true that the project changes regularly, but then as there is no simple method for informing editors or sysops about what changes of significance have occurred it is surely true that existing admins who are not active in a particular area are just as likely to know nothing about them as someone returning after a break. Ben MacDui 12:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but I would support a clarification of the policy to confirm (insofar as this is needed) that bureaucrats may exercise discretion in restoring rights to those who lost them due to inactivity (rather than just those who resigned them). It should be possible to refuse to restore rights (i) where there was controversy surrounding the user's use of their admin rights prior to their inactivity, or potentially (ii) behavioural issues since their return to activity. WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Almost any admin in good standing who has to take a year or 4 off will be granted the bit back at RfA. It isn't just about knowing policy, it is about understanding the community consensus on the interpretation of policy. Stuff that was ok 4 years ago will get an admin dragged to ANI for example. Adminship is not a right, it is a privilege, granted by the community. Once the user has been away from the community for years, consensus might have changed, so we owe it to the community to allow them to again voice an opinion once someone rejoins it and wants special, and powerful, tools. This will not discourage any admin or user, it just acknowledges that we change over time. It is bad enough that we admin are given adminship for life, it is worse if you don't even have to contribute here to keep it for life, just show up every few years and reclaim your "right". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Clarification needed Define "inactivity." Is it not having been an admin, or is it absence from the site? Purely hypothetically*cough*, we could imagine the case of an admin who resigned the bit in completely uncontroversial circumstances yet remained active on the site, regularly participating in its administrative and policy discussions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  My position, for what its worth - I would consider such a user.... as clearly active and not under any kind of cloud - without a consensus of objections - as a totally uncontentious resyop - Youreallycan 17:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Inactive is already defined as making no edits OR admin actions, so I agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: As many others have said hard cases make bad law. Furthermore while I fully endorse the idea of protecting the site from hacked inactive accounts, or from those who resign under a cloud and wait long enough for enough ppl to forget, this proposal, as currently worded, runs afoul of the principle of volunteering. Being a sysop is not compulsory and this proposal has IMHO the unintended consequence of eroding. Agree with jc37's proposal of more time--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Amend the current inactive administrator policy to read (something similar to): Should an administrator like their tools restored upon returning from inactivity

• They make a request on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• A seven day waiting period is to occur so that it can be determined whether the former administrator left under a cloud or other circumstances which warrant concern.
• Evidence of a cloud possibly existing before the administrator going inactive can be provided by any user at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Consensus amongst bureaucrats whether they would restore the tools after seven days (80% consensus) determines whether the tools are restored. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary bureaucracy for the tiny, tiny number of cases – I haven't seen anyone present any evidence that this will come up more than once or twice per year – where this situation might arise. As I noted above, if there's a clear case for desysopping someone, then ask the ArbCom to handle it by motion. Deciding whether or not an admin should be desysopped is the remit of ArbCom, not the 'crats. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You must note that this does not determine whether someone is desysopped, but rather whether the tools are restored to them after they have already been desysopped for inactivity. The only non-benefit is that someone might not the tools restored immediately. Any editor who truly is in good standing who wants their tools restored can wait seven days, can't they? If there's nothing to be had about their tools being restored, then no harmed done and we would have a working process for the one or two times a year. Besides, who exactly wants to go to ArbCom once or twice a year to resolve the same problem? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

So, rather than filing one ArbCom motion per year, you'd prefer to have every resysop request be an ArbCom motion—except that it has an 80% threshold to pass instead of a 50% threshold, and it's voted on by 'crats who weren't elected by the community to make these types of judgements. That doesn't make any sense. And it still means that the edge cases get bounced to ArbCom, when one side or the other disputes the impromptu 'under a cloud' finding.

In any event, drafting a brief, coherent ArbCom filing should be no more work and contain exactly the same information as any request to 'crats that they find an admin was 'under a cloud'. (Unless you intend your proposed process to be an open invitation to seven days of freeform sniping and out-of-context 'gotchas'—which based on the Polarscribe experience is exactly what your proposal will degenerate into.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're putting way too much thought into this. Our current practice is one bureaucrat can come along and re-sysop within a couple minutes, and pending whether they have thoroughly checked to see if they were under a cloud, may or may not be correct and (at this time) can't be undone by any policy. The only difference between my suggestion and what currently happens, is there is a wait period (7 days may be too long, we can adjust that) and 'crats actually do it consensus based amongst themselves (and others who feel like commenting) instead of one unilateral decision. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1-3 days maybe, but a week is too long I think. I might agree the race to do it in a few hours or less is probably too quick, though. - jc37 19:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What if they gave up the bit a few weeks ago, like WilliamH did? He got it back after determining it wouldn't interfere with his new job, why should he wait a week? Waiting a week makes sense if they gave up or lost the bit after a year of inactivity, granted, but I still maintain that if you have been inactive for over a year, you just need to go through RfA again. Like if you let your drivers license expire for a few years, some states make you retake the test. No different. If your leaving was uncontroversial, there shouldn't be a problem with you getting the bit back that way, and it demonstrates to the community that adminship isn't "for life" if you disappear for over a year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was speaking literally about inactivity desysops where they were inactive for over a year. WllliamH wouldn't have been affected. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'd oppose this on the grounds of instruction creep. Again sysops, just like everyone else, are volunteers. But I'd be open as Dennis says above to RFAs for long term (24 months+) absentees going through RFA again (if they wanted to)--Cailil ^talk 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Other re-granting proposals

24 hours

In the case of an admin giving up their tools, upon requesting re-granting, there should be at least a 24 hour wait to ascertain whether the time of removal was "under a cloud". And if there is a currently open community discussion concerning it, re-granting should wait until the discussion is closed. - jc37 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support seems fair enough. --Rschen7754 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would question how this would handle desysops done for inactivity. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In exactly the same way as any other reason for desysopping. The idea is that it allows time to correctly identify which cases are uncontroversial and which are not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) strong support - I was about to propose this myself. There is no such thing as an emergency re-sysopping, and after a period that is unlikely to be less than 6-12 months waiting 24 hours is not a significant delay. This waiting period though will allow time for careful investigation of anything that needs looking at, especially as no one person can be familiar with every former administrator nor the reasons why they no longer have the tools. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: As below, 24 hours minimum for re-sysoping in all cases makes sense--Cailil ^talk 00:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)−
• Support - I have long encouraged this practice, though I recognise little will happen if bureaucrats restore rights too quickly in appropriate cases. Jumping the gun and getting it wrong is a serious matter however. WJBscribe (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

1+2

In the case of admins desysopped due to inactivity, if, after the 1 year of inactivity which led to the desysopping due to inactivity, there is a subsequent 2 years (24 months) of continued inactivity (zero edits) then if the editor returns after that, a new RfA would be required to re-receive adminship. (So to be clear, this means there is a contiguous 3 years of zero edits.) - jc37 19:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support - this is reasonable. 24 hours minimum for regranting for everyone makes sense. The 1+2 requirement for RFA looks appropriate to me also--Cailil ^talk 00:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly in the same vein as what I've said above. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support net positive. --Rschen7754 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. as entirely reasonable. I was also support mandatory RfA after 3 or more years with no major edits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense. I don't think the rights should be granted for life. WJBscribe (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)