Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xeno (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 11 July 2011 (tagging several threads resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
    For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
    You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

    The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

    This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

    If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

    To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 0
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 14
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 14:40:42 on March 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.



    Closing RfC on bureaucrat promotion

    Resolved
     – I have closed the discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The now-ended RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold? is still in need of closing. Since the discussion concerns standards for promoting 'crats, I believe many people think it would be most appropriate for one of you to close it rather than having a non-crat admin do it. There was some discussion here about closing it a week or so ago, but no one has done so yet. If someone could step up, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I read the close as saying that a ratification of the result is desired. The result seems to be that the discretionary zone for RfB success begins at 75%. (Implied is that votes are !votes, that !votes can be weighted down if, for example, the !voter is an SPA, or the rationale is poor). So, if the question is that:

    The discretionary zone for RfB success begins at 75%

    • I agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. The closure was invalid. Less than 40 people participated in that discussion, 30% of them opposed. There was never a consensus for anything. Ruslik_Zero 06:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether they opposed with anything meaningful is another matter though. Numbers don't equal consensus. AD 08:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins

    Resolved
     – Affected users given after-the-fact notification; local user given appropriate application of oily fish; stewards advised of apparent shortfall in due diligence; proposal ongoing to provide for local execution of process rather than at meta. –xenotalk 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins passed with an overwhelming consensus. The procedural removal of Admin rights needs to be preformed on some 200 inactive Admins. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As this removal was done in violation of the policy, the rights should be reinstated. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should just leave them and continue as normal... if any inactives return they can be reinstated. It seems a waste of time to readmin them all only to have to deadmin again. AD 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, the User:Orphaned image deletion bot should be reflagged, as a bot that has sysop rights to delete pages, it never edits, and always appears inactive on a list of admin by last edit. Might want to check and see if other admin bots got flags removed in this, as well. Courcelles 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maxim has restored ops for the Orphaned image bot. Any others? –xenotalk 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see any others in the Meta log. Courcelles 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrats do not have the ability to remove admin rights from any account, inactive or otherwise. Useight (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They should all be messaged right now though, perhaps by a bot, according to the policy. RA should have done this before posting here. I shall go trout him. AD 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think it would make sense for bureaucrats to be able to desysop accounts themselves. Especially now when such actions will need to be done more frequently. Jafeluv (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The community rejected that for reasons I still don't understand last year. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's time for another proposal, since the community is finally seeing sense it seems. AD 21:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for that. I started a discussion at the Proposals VP about it. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a great result. Recently imo it has become clear that admins returning after lengthy periods need a bit of re integrating and re training before letting loose, this will enable at least a little discussion, so, after two years of not contributing you want to be a administrator again... why not edit for a couple of months and contribute again and we can see how you get along. The tools should not be easily returned to long term non contributing accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a discussion for another day though; as the proposal was worded, former administrators can get their tools back with a simple "yes, I am up to date on policy" statement. NW (Talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored a few +sysop bits that had logged actions that were before the one-year mark. I skippped one because the action was on July 7 (not getting fussy over a few days), two because they were clearly leaving (deleted user/talk pages). I restored an admin who shouldn't have be resysoped because they were clearly leaving, so I'm getting that fixed. And, with regards to 'crat rights - the admin package, while independent, really comes before the 'crat package. Seeing as the role of bureaucrats tends to be more politicized, it doesn't make sense to leave a user with 'crat flag but without an admin flag, because the policy doesn't explicity mention bureaucrat rights. Maxim(talk) 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to the bureaucrats, I would argue with at least part of this RFC passing, the community has at least partially agreed that admin/crat are separate enough to handle independently of oneanother. NW (Talk) 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, a talkpage note should be left for each of those 200 admins, explaining what's going on, and how they can request the bit back. --Elonka 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Elonka. Unlike Meta or Commons, our new inactivity policy doesn't require a fresh RFA for a returning admin, so ~250 reflaggings at this point would be a poor use of time. Let's get the notices out, and see what the response is. However, this really should not have happened, and in the future, the notifications need to be done before the deflaggings. Courcelles 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to the Arbitration Policy all request for removal of administrative tools (other than self-requests) are handled by the Arbitration Committee. So, I amended the Administrator Policy to reflect this. Ruslik_Zero 10:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that ArbCom would want to see an RFAR every time an inactive admin needs the tools removed.... T. Canens (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be done in batches. Ruslik_Zero 10:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear to me, at least, that if the community has decided to remove admin rights from certain administrators due to inactivity then that has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee nor the Arbitration Policy. ArbCom need not be involved in this in any way, shape or form. Besides, they have more important things to do. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, on reading the policy I note that it says they exist to "handle requests for removal", not "handle all requests for removal", so even if you go by the policy they have no reason to be involved either. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. It is clear that they handle all requests with just one exception. Ruslik_Zero 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree both with your assertion that it is clear and with your assertion that they handle all requests. It does not say 'all', and excluding one subcategory of 'removal of requests' does not automatically mean all other possible subcategories are included. Bear in mind, I used to be an arbitrator, and I can tell you with confidence that had something like this proposal happened while I was an arbitrator, ArbCom would have no need to get involved. However it is clear that the wording of the policy needs to be clarified, either way. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbitration policy needs to be updated, if it states that. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All is not included because it had been superfluous before the latest policy change was adopted—after all, Arbcom historically handled all requests except obvious cases of self-removal. There is another problem, though. This policy (removal of inactive administrators) did not specify how it should be have been done procedurally. As a result the first such request was successfully bungled. So, it is important to have an independent review before any tools are removed. Ruslik_Zero 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the Arbitration policy to take into account the results of the discussion mentioned at the very top of this section., basically, I added "from active administrators" to the "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools" entry under the scope of the policy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit represents a substantial change in the arbitration policy , and has been reverted (there may be instances where the committee needs to remove the rights of an administrator who is not active). In lieu, Kirill added a footnote, which I've tweaked slightly to reference and mirror the admin policy section on this. –xenotalk 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that I agree with "substantial", but whatever. The Arbs have far too much sway and stick their noses into too many places it doesn't belong. They have their places and their uses, but they too often overstep their authority and hand down edicts from on high, as it were. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was substantial in that it changed the policy such that the committee could only desysop active administrators. Amendments to the policy must follow this procedure. (Withholding comment on the remainder of your remark.) –xenotalk 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ← As an FYI, the committee did have some brief discussions on this (see "D" in this announcement). The committee does not necessarily need to be included (as this was a community-driven initiative), but would be willing to play a role if the agreed-upon implementation included the committee. My personal thoughts are that the procedure should not be "just anyone post at m:SRP for removal of rights any time an administrator hits the inactivity period", as that would be too chaotic for stewards. The optimal solution would be a monthly or quarterly posting to m:SRP by someone in an official capacity (e.g. an arbitrator or a bureaucrat) after that individual carefully reviewed the list of admins to have their rights removed and ensured that 1) they meet the criteria [several in this mass removal did not] and 2) they have been appropriately notified [none in this mass removal were appropriately notified]. –xenotalk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the language Ruslik0 added, since the interpretation of ArbCom involvement being required wasn't in the RfC and doesn't seem to have support from others who have commented here. But I agree with xeno that a more organized process should be developed, whether it involves ArbCom or not. Having random people show up on Meta asking for desysoppings under the new policy would be a mess. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To close the loop on this, it should be noted that the section now suggests that the request be made by en.wiki bureaucrats [1]. –xenotalk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pressing on

    So how are we going to move on from this? Is someone going to send out messages to all those admins? I am a strong proponent of adminship not being for life (and long after), but this was rushed inappropriately and now we have dozens of desysopped admins who should have been notified. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the notices should go out first to see if there's any response. I suppose time will tell whether or not all the desysop stuff has to go through the arbs or crats .. or whatever. We tend to tweak things when there's been this big of a change. I don't think that once the current group is all resolved there's really more than a handful a month that drift into that "inactive" category. Then again, it's not like I'm one of the big guns here.— Ched :  ?  11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested draft follows. –xenotalk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Looks fine to me. To avoid future rash actions, may I suggest that it be expressly stated in this new policy that requests to stewards to remove rights from admins on inactivy grounds must be made to them by enwiki bureaucrats? WJBscribe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Limiting the requests to bureaucrats makes sense, and it's probably better to do the removals in batches as suggested above since there's no immediate hurry to get the rights removed at the exact moment. Xeno's wording sounds good to me. Jafeluv (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, after this initial batch, what is the actual anticipated throughput of this process likely to be? That is, how many admin accounts fall into long-term inactivity per month? I'm assuming it's fewer than twenty, and a monthly cycle would be sufficient. Send out notifications during the first week of the month, and run the desysop after the end of the month. Allowing a three-week response window shouldn't do any great harm—what's the difference between 56 weeks of inactivity and 52 weeks? We'll pretty much avoid the hassle of resysopping individuals who are travelling away from internet access, and it allows breathing room to review the batch of potential desysops for errors like the one made with the orphaned image bot. It means that everyone knows what to expect from the process, and it means that the stewards get bugged just once per month.
    As a second point, will an attempt be made to contact the admins using their registered email addresses as well as through their talk pages? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can get an idea of how many will be removed per month on this page, although as pointed out above it's not entirely accurate. As for the second point, the policy as currently written requires both a talk page notice and notification by email. Jafeluv (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, any admin who is inactive since several months will have had their "email notification on talk page change" configuration flipped on, though I still think an explicit email should be sent. –xenotalk 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons and Meta both do it every six months, and require more activity than our policy does. We've got a lot more admins than either project, though. I'd think every quarter, though, would be easier on overhead and process, than a monthly process, especially as the policy requires notification a month before removal. Running this monthly would make it a constant drain on resources. Courcelles 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wants to be using Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive for anything that matters (like removing admin bits), the bot really should be changed so it looks at logged actions in addition to edits. I won't have a chance to do this for at least a week or two. The relevant source is at User:Rick Bot/scripts/getadminactivity if anyone might be interested in working on this before I get to it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with several of the suggestions above: The wording of Xeno's proposed notice looks good; I like the idea of funneling the requests at meta through the 'crats; and I think a quarterly process would be just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xeno's wording looks good, thanks. I might add a date that the policy changed, just for context, but that's a minor quibble. We may also want to consider updating WP:RESYSOP to allow for a streamlined process if/when an inactive admin returns. --Elonka 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any suggestions? The process is already pretty streamlined; the request immediately above was fulfilled in 6 hours... –xenotalk 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just a phrase after "uncontroversial", like, "...uncontroversial, such as if the administrator access was removed only due to inactivity." --Elonka 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How's this then? –xenotalk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick turnaround! I made a few minor tweaks.[2] Feel free to continue tweaking? --Elonka 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with WJB's comment that the people requesting to stewards for removal should be some sort of functionary-types who will ensure procedural due process is followed. I'm very concerned at the lack of notifications in the above request that occurred immediately after the policy was changed and the negative impact this could have on returning users and do not expect to see it repeated. MBisanz talk 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We also need to get notifications out to all the folks who were affected by the premature removals. The good news is that the odds of any given person from that list reappearing in the next few days are low, so probably notices will be out before anyone comes back to find their permissions mysteriously changed. But I think everyone (including the person who initiated it) agrees this was mishandled, a mistake to avoid repeating. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should feel free to take my proposed wording and run with it. Maybe add a "With thanks for your past administrative efforts." –xenotalk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we put it in a template? That would make it easier to work on. Looking at CAT:UWT, maybe something like {{inactiveadmin}}? --Elonka 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Preliminary version of a template created at Template:Inactive admin. Please review and change as seems appropriate. This is for notifying those who have already had their privileges suspended. I assume we will also want to create standard messages for the pre-suspension notifications called for in the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    List of users needing notification: [3]. –xenotalk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RL0919, I checked {{inactive admin}}, and made a few tweaks.[4] --Elonka 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Xeno, Elonka and Graham87 for their edits to the template. Are folks comfortable enough with its wording for the notifications to begin? --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me, I'd say proceed. --Elonka 16:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing no objections, I started delivering notifications. Going alphabetically; did the A-B-Cs so far. I no fancy-shmancy bot writer, so I'm just doing it with AWB. Will probably work on it off-and-on over the weekend unless someone else beats me to finishing it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider driving User:MessageDeliveryBot. At the least, please enable "Do not use section edit summaries" in AWB (per WP:NEWSECTION =) –xenotalk 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who got picked up by this policy change, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's a good move and I appreciate that you're making the effort to notify people, even after the fact. As they say, no harm, no foul. Gazimoff 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ← FYI, RL0919 (talk · contribs) has finished getting all the after-the-fact notifications out and I thank them for their efforts, along with those who helped develop the message. To the extent that the inactive sysops have not recently logged in to modify their preferences, they should be getting an email note about their talk page being updated. –xenotalk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FORMER

    How should this change be reflected on WP:FORMER? Could someone go through and add the current batch who were removed? Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend a new header/section altogether. –xenotalk 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [5] ? Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Here's the list. I've pasted it to that section. –xenotalk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah - I was just moaning over how to get the list in easily and saw you did it :) Good work, agree with the changes and reposition. Incidentally, did you note the change from "some" to "many"? I think that's pretty uncontroversial given the numbers but willing to be challeneged. Pedro :  Chat  19:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Many" seems reasonable, especially given today's addition of the 250+ some-odd that are definitely not active... –xenotalk 19:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (just FYI I got the list by copypasting [6] and then using Excel to chop it up with the find/replace to insert a delimiter followed by the "text-to-column" feature, then used WP:AWB's list comparer to compare the resulting list with the list of admins to filter out the ones that got re-upped)[reply]
    Yeah, yeah I was going to do it that way to. Geek. :) Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, bearing in mind that they didn't resign nor were they desysopped for abuse, so a separate section is necessary here. Acalamari 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks smart people! MBisanz talk 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications

    Would it be possible to clarify steps have been taken to make sure something like this isn't rushed again in future without notifications? Xeno has left a notice at the meta permissions page pointing to this page and discussion, but I want to make sure that those that pushed this forward and took the actions are asked to comment here. From what I can tell, The Resident Anthropologist made the request at meta, but has not commented here since then. I am going to ask them on their talk page how they would handle something like this in future. I am also concerned (like xeno above) that the Stewards granted the request prematurely before things were quite ready. My question is whether this was a one-off misunderstanding, or whether it is a systemic failure. FWIW, the steward that actioned the request was User:Matanya. Per his message on his user page, I'll notify him on his meta page about this thread and ask him if he is willing to explain here what happened, and what could be done to avoid it in future. If it was a systemic failure (and not individuals rushing things), then can someone note here what has been done to make sure a repeat is avoided? Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC) OK, I didn't realise it was so long ago, and didn't look far up enough TRA's talk page - see the trouting here. Three notes left: [7], [8], [9]. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I for one have yet to understand why Matanya actioned the request in the first place. I was particularly amazed that he continued after it was drawn to his attention that local policy did not support his actions: "Matanya just said on IRC that it would be stupid to not finish those few left." I think we're still waiting on an explanation? WJBscribe (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Matanya replied over on meta and asked me to quote here what they said:

    Hello, glad you came here to discuss this issue. One thing that doesn't reduce my responsibility regarding this wrong action, as you can see in the logs, is that I wasn't the only steward how fulfilled this request. For example: here. Anyway, to get to the point, I have learned my lesson form this failure, and a rush removal of such, wouldn't happen on my side again. Moreover, I have checked where was my point of failure, and I found out that my mistake was I didn't read the result of the vote carefully enough and missed this very important detail. I sincerely apologizes about this action, and hope no harm had happened. Thank you for pointing this out, and I'll appreciate if you'll quote my words on the relevant pages. sorry and best Matanya 11:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[10]

    That's good enough for me. Still waiting to see what the stewards' response in general will be. Carcharoth (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really dont have alot to say here other than I plum forgot about the 30-day notification and posted the request after the RFC passing it. I also was unaware this extended discussion of my actions was existence. I originally posted there saw the "To request your administrator status to be removed, go to Steward requests." Figured I was in the wrong place and self reverted. I subsequently placed a request at Stewards. Apparently an editor reinstated my deleted comment and neglected to notify of the thread's continued existence. I dont hold it against them at all. I do realize I must look really arrogant to some people who may think I was ignoring this thread discussion on my actions.
    I take responsibility for attempting to implement the new policy without following the notification instructions built into it. It was error on my part that has caused quite a bit of trouble on the here and for both aspects I apologize. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for chiming in here. While sub-optimal, the end result is probably not that far off from if the appropriate notifications had been made. –xenotalk 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Revisiting the proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin bit

    Resolved
     – Proposals live.

    Per this discussion at WP:VPR, there seems to be sufficient consensus to re-visit this proposal which failed in the beginning of 2010. As I wrote at VPR, I created two RFC drafts for this proposal, one for the technical ability and one for the policy (with thanks to RL0919 and xeno for the idea):

    Since I am not skilled in creating RFCs and this board is visited by many users interested in bureaucrat-related topics, I would like to invite your help in creating these RFCs. Note: Those are still drafts and I need people to help me finish them. Especially since the last RFC had unclear scope and wording, I think we should try to be extra careful in the wording and layout. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not saying I'd oppose either, as I'd want to think it through fairly well first. Two notes though. One, it certainly does change the power structure around this joint if it would go through. and Two: I'm not sure that running both proposals concurrently is the best method. Seems it could get a tad confusing to some. Meaning that perhaps we need to establish "IF" the crats should have the ability first. Then worry about when to apply it once it's been granted. Certainly food for thought. Awaiting further input, and both pages watchlisted. — Ched :  ?  21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand a bit on my line of thought. There is already a huge divide between admin. and non-admin. The fact that we have some .. ummmm .. anxious(?) administrators who have no qualms about placing a "block" when there may be some gray areas, and questionable circumstances often leads to much drama and discord among the rank and file. Having a "rogue(?) crat that simply "takes away the bit" (even if agreed upon by fellow crats) seems to move "GovCom" to "GovCrats". — Ched :  ?  22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I expect that a "rogue" bureaucrat who started desysopping people outside of established policy would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an ArbCom hearing. A rogue admin might get away with wrongly blocking some naif who doesn't know how to fight back. But in a wrongful desysopping the victim would be someone well versed in wikipolitics, with a cadre of probably sympathetic fellow admins to help the case along. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, and I can sympathize with that viewpoint. However, let's admit that any and all of the "ArbCom desysop" efforts are certainly not without their share of drama and often divisive effects. They are also quite difficult in reaching a decision, and often the results of multiple cases. Are we sure we want another layer of complexity here? — Ched :  ?  22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This could actually reduce the complexity. Rather than having to take an admin to ArbCom (which in itself is a lot of work and requires a fairly large incident) in order to get a removal of the bit, a consensus on ANI would suffice. Similar to the way that community bans are issued, the process could remove the drama of the desysop, at least a bit. Having seen a few of both go through, bans imposed by the community are by and large less divisive and dramatic than those imposed by ArbCom. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Bureaucrats, as recently confirmed, have the highest bar to jump over in terms of community trust. I have never understood why the power to make admins is granted to 'crats, but not the obviously important tool of removing the sysop buttons. I think the dual drafts, while possibly confusing to some, are a good idea, as the power and the criteron for de-adminship should be considered apart. Jusdafax 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: As I said above, those are only drafts, so starting to discuss and/or !vote on them now makes no sense, since they wording may still change. Instead of fragmenting the discussion again by now talking about the merits of the proposal(s) here, I would really ask you to help draft those RFCs, so we can start having the discussion there soon. It's evident that there is some need to discuss this but doing so here or at the RFCs' talk pages just defies the point of having RFC(s) in the first place. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag for bot

    Resolved

    Hello, 'crats - could I get a bot flag for User:HersfoldArbClerkBot please? It got approved recently but doesn't have the flag yet. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, sorry for the delay... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason it's still sitting in the "trial completed" section, which would explain the delay (i.e. it was never moved to WP:BRFAA). –xenotalk 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. Thanks much! Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit now "live"

    The two Requests for Comment mentioned above are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts

    Since this affects crats, please take note of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for restoration of administrator privileges

    Resolved
     – WP:RESYSOP'd

    Hi all! I was recently left a note on my talk page and I'm wondering if this is the proper forum to request restoration of my (former) administrator privileges. If so, great, just let me know what the next step is. If not, would someone mind pointing me in the right direction? Thanks in advance! oceeConas tá tú? 02:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't needed these rights for a year now, why do you need them now? Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Why do you need them now? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question directly rather than with questions: yes, this the the appropriate place to ask for restoration. You just need to wait for a proper bureaucrat to respond, and if you meet the criteria as discussed at WP:RESYSOP, then they will take care of it. You are welcome to answer the non-bureaucrat questions above, but that is optional, not part of the resysop process itself. --RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ocee does not need a reason. He has asked, and so it will be done. Prodego talk 04:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that. That's the stupidity of the system. Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your admin access has been restored. It was suspended due to inactivity and not in controversial circumstances, so there is no reason to withhold it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither was there any reason to restore it. Malleus Fatuorum 06:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please can we not have a repeat of the above discussion every time someone requests restoration of their rights? Those who don't like the current policy should lobby for it to be changed. In the meantime, it is what it is.
    Whilst comments about whether rights should be restored in a particular case are helpful - e.g. drawing our attention to problematic behaviour prior the rights being removed, or evidence suggesting the account may have been compromised - general objections to the restoration of rights in accordance with the current policy are not. WJBscribe (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I ask whether the bureaucrats look for problematic behaviour or evidence of an account being compromised? I'm asking because that may happen one day and if the rights have been restored before someone points this out in a particular case, the bureaucrats will look silly. Especially if the evidence was right under their noses. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with WJB, there was consensus for the rights of inactive users to be removed, but it was also agreed that the rights could be requested back should the user return. The person passed RFA at some point, presumably, and hasn't done anything wrong, presumably, so there is no reason to not return them. AD 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think there should be some changes to the current policy though. Ocee has just been regranted tools, despite being inactive for over a year and his last 50 edits go back to 2009. While this was within the agreed policy, it makes no sense just to give the tools back, it defeats the point in the removal in the first place. There is a discussion under way here about some changes needed. AD 11:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also trying to find out when Ocee's RFA was, and where that page is. But I think this is one of those rename/anonymity issues. See here. That log summary by Kingturtle ("anonymity issues") is public knowledge and in a public log, so I don't think it is something that can't be noted here, but I would hope bureaucrats would be aware of that and double-check things before resysopping. If anonymity issues like this shouldn't be public, then I would suggest that requests for resysopping from such users not be made in public, as that will inevitably draw attention to the user. Maybe the bureacrats should think about how to handle private resysopping requests? Carcharoth (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't think adminship requests should ever be done in private. If there are privacy issues then the admin should perhaps just go without being an admin. Being an admin involves being accountable to the community, and secret sysopping and desysopping isn't at all helpful. PS I know who Ocee's former account was, and it's not difficult at all to work out. AD 11:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not difficult to work out, and I have now found the RFA. The year was 2006, which is what I wanted to know. My point is that there are a number of cases like this, and the de-sysop/re-sysop cycle will just draw attention to them as people try in vain to work out the history behind inactive accounts that pop up again after a long absence. Which is why I think the bureaucrats need to have some standard approach to cases where no RFA exists under the existing name. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that a careful review of relevant pages goes without saying. In fact, we resolved some time ago that a 24-hour deliberation period should be observed to give other bureaucrats the chance to approve, but I don't think that's necessary for inactivity suspensions (unless the inactivity was precipitated by a controversy of some kind). If there is consensus to modify the new policy in some way so that suspensions are not to be immediately reversed on request, then so be it; until then, we should follow the current procedure without questioning its general application in specific instances. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, as long as bureaucrats that resysop, and then find there is a problem they missed, do the right thing (or other bureaucrats do it for them). Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that goes without saying, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was actually referring to two things, both the cry that would go up for the re-sysop to be undone (if problems later surface) pending further discussion (this may not be workable - what for instance if someone points out a problem weeks later, rather than in the first few hours?). And also the bureaucrat considering their position. This was best expressed by WJBscribe in the discussion on the 24-hour wait period for resysopping:

    I think that bureaucrats who choose to restore the tools without waiting for comments from the community about controversy they may have overlooked, or input from other bureaucrats, do so at their own risk. Should the decision to do so prove to be in error, I don't think a bureaucrat should be surprised if the community's confidence in them is shaken and would, I think, need to consider their position WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) [11]

    That sums up my feelings on the matter as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. Perhaps I'm not involved enough in this discussion, but where did this hypothetical issue (bad re-sysop, goes rogue, breaks Wikipedia) actually become a real issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is more a case of ensuring community trust that a new process is working OK. Like asking for feedback, rather than treating it like a routine action. It might also be a good idea to pre-empt the inevitable discussion in a year or so when some resysopped admins from this lot get desysopped again (having returned to inactivity). Being desysopped and resysopped repeatedly under this process is something that might not go down too well. I would hope that anyone returning and asking for resysopping would at least have the courtesy to state whether they intend to return to activity in the next year or not. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't the bluster and energy wasted on this completely overwhelming compared to the effort involved in re-sysoping an admin just to de-sysop him/her just over a year later? What are we actually trying to achieve by this? If the community don't trust the 'crats to make these decisions, perhaps the community should be questioning the position and rights of 'crats rather than subparts of their responsibilities? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the crats commented in this situation - the returning inactive user currently does not have to answer any questions at all about their intentions, if the crat finds that they did not leave under a cloud, no matter now long they have been inactive, they give they resopp without question or reason to. This is not really the place to discuss this as the crats have no say in this at all, its a community decision. I would suggest an RFC but there was just one that created this update so perhaps we should wait for one year from now and we will be able to see how many asked for their tools back and what they did with them.Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good plan. Though I would look more at editing activity, as there are some thing admins do as admins that are not logged. If an admin resysopped under this process returned to regular editing activity and stated that they found the admin tools useful while doing this, that alone would be enough (for me at least). On the other hand, if someone came back, asked for the tools back, and then went inactive again for a year, that would be silly (though activity on other projects should be taken into account). But as you say, let's wait a year and see how things go. Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, although imo still not perfect the new policy is better and clearly nothing has gone wrong so we can collect some editing contribution feedback and get back to it next year sometime. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you for the help on the procedural issues RL0919, and thanks as well to AD for taking some time out of your day to restore my administrator privileges. Appreciate it, fellas! oceeConas tá tú? 21:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Commenting slightly in the vein of Spartaz, this is why I complained above about the removals done without notice. While I don't know if ocee would have followed the new policy and opt'd out of inactivity removal after being notified, it would have avoided this entire debate if he was notified and opt'd out. MBisanz talk 22:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a minor point - but as far as I know, there is no "opting out" of the WP:INACTIVITY procedure. While making any edit or logged action would give you another year's grace, you would still be subject to removal for inactivity if you didn't make another edit or logged action over the next twelve months. –xenotalk 13:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]