This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Really? I've no great understanding of how this board works but surely making one or two edits annually around the time that the bit might be lost is gaming the system? And I make it 50 edits in total since some time in 2010 - I don't see how anyone can keep on top of changes to policies and guidelines etc with that sort of volume, even with the recently introduced admin newsletter. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this. As I understand it, only ArbCom and the WMF can desysop, except for inactivity or user self-request. However, there must be some sort of moral imperative/good faith to the rest of the community involved when requesting resysop after inactivity. No? - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find no fault with Jay. The community is intelligent enough to pass a proposal requiring one/10/100 logged administrative actions every year, if it wants. And if such a proposal hasn't passed yet, the community has no right demanding anything to the opposite from reapplying former administrators. Lourdes14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note:Master Jay, please note, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests. Everyone else, please note that this is not the best place to discuss changes to the inactivity policy, however there is a currently running RfC (Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards) where such input is being solicited. Furthermore, if you think there are any policy based reasons why this request should be declined please let us know. Thank you! — xaosfluxTalk14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly sarcastic. Not subtly, either. I would suggest snarking here is not helping anyone or anything and if you dislike the existing inactivity policy, go participate in the discussion about changing it. Fish+Karate15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I have reverted my post; it's prudential enough to note that Jay's last sysop request contained precisely nil words (in what was commented by a 'crat to be one of the most verbose requests; snarky?).
With practically nil activity in the last few years; he returns and stakes a claim to his inalienable right just because he has returned. ∯WBGconverse15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Master Jay, as part of your requirement to be accountable for your administrative actions, would you please explain why, as your only two logged actions in nearly a decade, you made the decision to both protect the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after a single vandalizing edit, and to also block the IP that made the edit? Could you please explain how these actions conform to current policy and community norms with regard to blocking and protection? Could you also please explain why you felt it necessary to revoke talk page access for the IP, and how this conforms to current policy and community norms with regard to revoking talk page access for anonymous users? Could you also please explain why you did not feel it necessary, when revoking talk page access for an IP, to notify the user of what steps to take to request an unblock, in the case that an unrelated individual found themselves editing on what may have been a dynamic IP?
Could you also provide your opinion, under the same policy regarding administrator accountability, why you feel the community should not see what is fairly obvious and egregious gaming our inactivity requirements as a form of bad-faith adminship, and why an individual engaged in such a pattern of editing should not raise serious concerns that they may no longer enjoy the trust or confidence of the community? GMGtalk15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to this, since the only edit other than requesting the tools back since January 2, 2018 was this, it would be good to hear that Master Jay did not request the tools because he intended to block an IP/protect a page due to a single edit again this time. Dekimasuよ!21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not a rationale to prevent re-granting the tools, I feel obliged to ask Master Jay whether he expects to be more active in the project over the next 8 years than he was over the last 8 years. If that's not the case, I suggest he withdraw this request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In inactivity resysops, perhaps we need to somehow require, at the least, that the simple question, 'why do you request resyssop' be addressed, so the community can get an idea over-time why this pattern occurs. Also, it appears we can't assume, voluntary forthcoming-ness under WP:ADMINACCT to get this info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the objections here, existing policy is, imho, rather clear. Essentially I echo what Lourdes said: If you want change, change the activity standards for admins. Lectonar (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. If people want to reform the system, they should vote in the RfC, but thus far, the community has intended for requests like this to be granted. Some even turn out to be pretty active (see Cyp). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the RfC until Xaosflux mentioned it. Had a quick look and it seems to be more concerned about the possibility of compromised accounts. My concern is gaming the system, bad faith and the likelihood of not being competent. I can't help feeling that admins are circling the wagons but will have to have a further think. This particular request, however, absolutely stinks and I hope that Master Jay realises it (although judging by their past activity, they may not even see this discussion until after it has been nodded through). - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the community for the moment agrees that this kind of requests for resysopping should be granted, that goes for uncontroversial requests. With the only logged actions in the last couple of years being rather bad calls, it would appear to me that this request is not uncontroversial and I for one would not protest if the 'crats did not honor this request. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but whatever, the 'duty-boundness' is (and suddenly it's 'duty', when seemingly at convenience at other times, it's voluntary), anyone is still free to ask questions, comments, or concerns and even offer advice if they wish to do so. Otherwise, the alternative is, 'no one cares' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfathomably stupid and a clear gaming of the system. It is obvious that these types of situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis instead of constantly letting people make one or two edits and logged actions to maintain permissions that they clearly do not want to use. The bureaucrats need to determine if trust is lost by these inactive sysops and send it back to the community to determine if they should stay. If they are unwilling to go through the modern RfA, then it is clear that they are not committed to the role. I highly doubt the community would be interested in resysoping someone who has been inactive and gaming the system for 12 years. Nihlus18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: I reviewed Master Jay's contributions and do not believe that it is in the best interests of the project to fulfill this request. The request, while perhaps falling within the letter of the resysop policy, is outside of its spirit and intent as Master Jay has not made more than token contributions for over eight years. I would encourage Master Jay to rejoin the project in earnest prior to requesting the return of rights. Other 'crats may see it differently and may choose to act. UninvitedCompany18:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IAR should apply to a situation within a well defined policy. On the other hand, choosing not to use the tools that have been given to you is not IAR, it's part of policy. Any or all crats can choose to ignore the request. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that crats aren't, really, "duty bound" to do anything, no arms are being forced here. If issues have been raised on this noticeboard questioning a resysop, and yet crats feel feel they do not come within the criteria of refusal, that doesn't mean they have no choice other than to flick the bit. Since it is the community that elects its sysops—and is the first damaged by rogue elements—then send it back to the community via WP:AN. The crats can then bask in the self-satisfaction that whatever they do is the result of a community consensus. I beieve, in the vernacular, it's called covering one's back... 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129
While I do not have a policy based stance for this opinion, I will say that I will be actively not fulfilling this request. I encourage Master Jay to withdraw it, and spend a little time bringing himself up to speed through editting before re-requesting, and if he decides to do so, it should be considered without prejudice. WormTT(talk) 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's within Master Jay's rights to request the flag back, but I certainly wouldn't request it back myself under these circumstances. Dekimasuよ!21:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expounding upon this slightly, there are now more responses to this request than edits by Master Jay in the 2010s. Without meaning to browbeat anyone, a clueful response to this would be to reflect upon the community response here, withdraw the request, and let everyone get back to editing. Dekimasuよ!22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my comments above because I do think, on reflection, there is a policy-based reason to pause and reflect here. Our policy states:
If a former administrator has been administratively inactive (defined by zero logged administrative actions) for a period of five years or longer at the time of their last administrative rights removal, and the removal was for inactivity, they should be successful in a new request for adminship to have the permission(s) restored.
In the last 8 years, this user has performed two logged administrative actions. However, GreenMeansGo has pointed out that the two logged actions are both exceedingly dubious. I no longer know where I stand on this request and while I think I'd still feel obligated by policy to return the tools, I think this needs further thought - and over a longer period than 24 hours.
I don't see what there is for the crat to chat about. Master Jay is perfectly entitled within the policy set by the community to request it back. There is no policy based reason for the crats to formally refuse the request. The crats are however also not obliged to action it either. If all of you want to pocket veto it, that's your prerogative. However, I feel a formal crat chat which effectively lead to a formal decision (if it is a negative one) even if it's not phased like that wouldn't be right. -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as as black and white. His last valid administrative action was in 2010. He even had a period of 8 years with no logged actions. It just so happened that this time he forgot to make a token edit to avoid being desysoped. If the crats see his only 2 actions since 2010 as being outside of administrative policy, they may decide that they don't qualify. Natureium (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy based reason to refuse to return the tools that I am aware of other than IAR and COMPULSORY, which is just a passive way of saying IAR. There is however nothing preventing someone from immediately opening a request for arbitration based on an apparent bad faith resysop request, misuse of the admin tool set in 100% of their uses over the past several years (did you know the Vatican has on average 2 Popes per square kilometer?) and failure to respond to a civil request for clarification regarding ADMINACCT. But if we are going to refuse return of the tools via COMPULSORY, then that needs to be an individual decision. Doing so via crat chat would amount to making policy. If you would like to delay the request for the individual to respond, and decide whether an immediate arbitration case is what they would like to do going forward, then that is of course perfectly covered by COMPULSORY, IAR, as well as COMMONSENSE. GMGtalk21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: Per Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship, adminship is restored unless: 1) It was resigned under a cloud; 2) There were over three years without an edit; 3) There were over five years without using the admin tools; or 4) The account has been compromised. None of these criteria have been met. Yes, there was a five year period without using the tools, but the two in January broke the streak just prior to the inactivity removal process. There have been multiple attempts to change the criteria to something more strict, but none have been successful, so it appears the community is presently fine with the criteria as it exists. Taking off my bureaucrat hat for a moment, I have always opposed requiring admin actions to avoid inactivity desysops, because it could result in a hasty and possibly incorrectly-done admin action. Putting my 'crat hat back on, the policy states specifically that it has to be five years "since administrative tools were last used." There is nothing mentioned about 'how well' they need to have been used. Obviously the 'crats are not robots, but we have a very narrow scope. I'm not (yet) seeing a policy-based reason to explicitly decline the request. Useight (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone makes a hasty admin decision because they feel under pressure regarding a proposed inactivity desysop, they probably shouldn't have the tools anyway. There are an unbelievable number of entirely mundane admin actions they could take. As for the policy thing, I think most people commenting here already accept that but they want some common sense to be applied by some means or another. It is not an unreasonable sentiment in such an extreme case. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should probably be granted. (Unfortunately the bureaucrats' noticeboard is a particularly unsuitable venue for alluding to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.) But it should not have been requested, and I don't think most of the changes in the RfC will help matters much if an editor decides to be POINTy about retaining or regaining the tools. Dekimasuよ!22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lourdes and Mz7. Change the rules if you want them changed, but until then this is an open-and-shut case. And actually there is a valid reason for the user to reattain the tools, because perhaps they anticipate a more full time comeback in the future, if they don't get the tools back then the clock is ticking down to when they would need a fresh RfA. — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems restoring the +sysop bit here. After the Cyp debacle of two years ago, I proposed a tightening up of the inactivity policy based on that discussion (see diff). Needless to say, it sank like a lead balloon. The current RfC on inactivity isn't doing so hot either. Point being is ... the community cannot have its cake and eat it. Either we have clear consensus to amend the activity requirements or we enforce the existing policy, regardless of an admin doing a bare minimum. Maxim(talk)00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for right or wrong, Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards clearly shows that the community is not willing to tighten admin activity requirements, so as much as I might sympathize with the concerns expressed by the commenters here, the crats can't unilaterally tighten those requirements ourselves. That said, I think it would be wise if no one flipped the bit before Master Jay has had the chance to answer the legitimate questions that have been posed to him. The 24-hour hold is a minimum, not a deadline, and there's really no rush, especially in a case like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's probably the prerogative of crats, to extend the 24 hour period. But I think it's unfair to do that and almost equivalent to a crat supervote that the bit is not given until a response is provided. If you have been doing this in all your past bit flips, the current suggestion would have been okay. But it's probably not right to ask other crats to not give the bit till the response is given – akin to ad-hoc creation of a different standard for Jay, something like "only administrators we're comfortable with can enter without answering questions"; really not nice and something that reminds me of....(yes, you got it). Lourdes03:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a wise move on the part of the crats to ask for a response to the concerns raised here before flipping the bit. I can only imagine that if they had mechanically just granted the mop that someone (either from this conversation directly, or watching it) will go straight to ArbCom to have those same questions formally asked in a case request DaxBane03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crats are not supposed to help resolve supposedly potential ArbCom cases. This is absolutely not required. Jay's account is not compromised and there is no policy basis for delaying flipping the bit, supposedly on common sense. Lourdes03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As at the open RfC, this is admins protecting their own. I understand that there is a policy in place but admins are quite happy to use IAR when it suits them. The RfC doesn't show a "failure of the community" in wanting change, it shows a circling of the wagons by admins and I'm not even sure if it was well-publicised. It isn't often that I criticise the admin as a corps but they are collectively failing the community here. I'm going to post a random note at the RfC - it won't fit in sequence with anything in particular but it is a commentary on that process. - Sitush (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, you know how I respect your views. That said, I have no love for Jay or his adminship. I have objection with some of the crats attempting to use IAR over policy – the community has been very clear that that's not their job; and if, in this case, some of them are trying to do so, I'm opposing that pov tooth and nail. Lourdes07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I keep seeing comments along those lines - that the community has been clear re 'crat role etc - but I've never seen an example of it in all the years I've been here, which is approximately the same length of time that Master Jay has done bugger all. Perhaps I have been too busy improving the 'pedia or perhaps my memory is even worse than I already think it is. Either way, your fighting tooth and nail on a matter of principle is precisely the problem here. Dogmatism has never been a successful strategy for humankind. And doing things "on the nod" often produces poor outcomes, too. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having come back from an inactivity desysop myself back in 2011, I understand where Jay might be coming from. I've emailed them and encouraged them to come here and answer some of the concerns presented. Policy is pretty clear in this case - the bit should be returned. SQLQuery me!03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above that I have no policy based reason for my stance, Dweller has helpfully pointed out some bureaucratic grey area. In addition however, I will say that Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive - and IAR states that you should take an action which improves the encyclopedia, no matter what the rules say - this is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, resysopping Master Jay, in these circumstances, harms the encyclopedia. Not directly (I have no doubt that Master Jay is an excellent individual and would not abuse the tools) but indirectly, falsely inflating the numbers of available admins and giving editors and readers a false impression. In addition, without commenting here, the individual is ignoring the fact that he is accountable to the community.
When it comes down to it, I won't blame any crat who does resysopping the individual, but I appeal to Master Jay themselves, if you won't withdraw and prove yourself (I'm not asking much, maybe a month of editting to show you do intend to return) - at least discuss the matter here. WormTT(talk) 07:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colleagues - I have read through all your comments. I have meant no harm or foul in procedurally requesting this resysop due to inactivity. I plan on participating again earnestly. Thank you. Jay(Talk)08:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Are you going to address the concerns raised above by GMG regarding your only admin actions in the last 8 years or so? And do you understand why people have concerns that you are gaming the system? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me this is less a problem with the rules per se (although I disagree with the rules and would like them either specifically changed, or at least modified with some additional wording to address circumstances such as this), and more a problem of WP:GAMING and WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Because of those two items, the issue might better be addressed at WP:AN if the tools are restored here. Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what SQL said. I know there's an element of WP:VOLUNTEER here - we can't require the crats to do anything, individually or collectively - but the whole point of this policy is that the bit will be returned on request, provided there are no account-compromise issues. Lots of other things unravel - especially the notion that admins should welcome inactivity desysopping and even drop the bit on purpose if they know they'll be inactive because it's a useful security measure - if the community doesn't uphold its end of the bargain and return it. I don't know why people discussing inactivity always jump to weird conspiracy conclusions like "admins circling the wagons!!!" as if any one particular member of a group of 1200 would feel a specific desire to protect some other member they've never interacted with or even heard of, but for some reason conspiracy theories are always more persuasive than input by people who have actually been in the situation of an inactive returning admin. And having actually been there, I thought it was a reasonable enough decision that someone who'd been gone for such a long time couldn't have the bit back just by asking - but if I'd read the policy and it said I could, and then when I followed the policy, I got a bunch of comments like these disparaging my motivations, questioning my good faith, and using my otherwise uninteresting request as a platform for advocating for their preferred wikipolitical reforms, I would probably have decided I could find a different hobby. (And a few readers sigh and wish it had come to pass... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Opabinia regalis, you don't like me so you're going to find issues in my wording. It isn't a conspiracy theory, though. I have no theory and have specifically pointed out that I am not usually a critic of the admin corps. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did say however "this is admins protecting their own" (which btw stopped me from leaving my own opinion in this thread, because a month ago I was dragged into an arbitration case following the allegations of "this is admins protecting their own", and the allegations continued even after the case was closed). Let us be careful with what we say please.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, here or in the real world, and I come from an area where a spade is called a spade. I don't faff about with words, just tell it how it seems to be to me. I'm not au fait with a lot of jargon, eg: the whole LGBT thing, where the letters in the acronym frequently seem to change and people are quick to take offence if you don't know the current formulation. I have no desire to be an admim or arbitrator etc and know that I am temperamentally unsuited anyway but if someone doesn't know what I mean then that usually says more about them than me. I have a reputation for being patient here, despite what some seem to think, and generally I am most grateful to admins and regularly thank them for their work, either publicly or via the logged thanks mechanism. When I say that admins seem to be circling the wagons, that is how it looks to me using simple language but it is not a suggestion that there is some long-term conspiracy. There are people who think the corps are the devil's spawn etc; I'm not even close. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Hmm? I don't think I have any opinions about you in particular; if I spent my time disliking everyone who'd said something insensitive once, I'd never get anything else done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's been in the position of being inactivity-removed from Arbcom, which surely scores more martyrdom points than a mere inactivity-desysop, and who gets on fine with OR, I find the concerns of Sitush (and others) entirely reasonable. To make a somewhat forced analogy, if I'd only driven a car twice in the past eight years and on both of those occasions I ran a red light and crashed, and subsequently failed to renew my driving license, I feel the DMV would be within their rights to ask "are you sure?" if I subsequently tried to renew the license without re-sitting my test, even if there's no legal obligation on me to do so. (@OR, if you want a non-forced analogy, as a former Arb I'm theoretically entitled to ask for both the CU and OS bits back at any time. If I were to pop up asking for them back, do you think that would be uncontroversial and automatic?) ‑ Iridescent09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not - I'm sure someone would ask if you know how to use CU still or suggest training, but OS, sure.
Anyway, I usually show up to these 'admin inactivity' discussions to say the same thing, but I'm not opposed to implementing different standards now. I'm opposed to retroactively applying whatever standard the subset of people commenting on BN wish were in effect. Sorry, the DMV is too forced for me - crashing your car might kill somebody, occasional admin mistakes are mostly just someone being wrong on the Internet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is accountable. Master Jay wants a position where he or she will be held accountable. So, being held to account can be no serious travail, rather expected. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It it a bit too easy to let off the whole situation as an exercise in nihilistic politics. Intuitive morality is often a very bad morality, but that doesn't mean we ought to abandon our common sense in calling a spade a spade, when a situation presents itself that seems on its face to run counter to the spirit of the project. There are certainly some here for whom this is merely their preferred mode of social media, but I'd like to think that for most of us it isn't just some thing on the internet, but that there's some calculation about the best use of our philanthropic free time, and the value of free knowledge factors into that equation. There is certainly some empathy to be had for the good faith returning admin, but there should also be some empathy to be had for the good faith user who has to deal with someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and is apt to waste limited time by having permissions they only enjoy through esoteric rules and historical happenstance, rather than an accurate measure of their ability to use that access to effectively accomplish shared goals. Unfortunately, that interaction most often doesn't happen with the spotlight of BN, but in the dimly lit corners of mainspace. It's not quite even handed to dismiss those of us who populate those corners as nihilistic partisans for being concerned about their well being.
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above. I presume I will receive one promptly, in accordance with our special esoteric rules. GMGtalk13:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll answer the question since it’s a non-issue that wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows if people weren’t mad about the apparent gaming the article history shows 17 rollbacks and 21 undos in the last 250 edits. Some of those are active editors undoing eachother, but I think it’s fair to say the majority of them are vandalism or disruption by IP users. Indeed looking at the article history, it’s difficult to find good edits by IPs or unregistered users at that page. So protection would likely have been granted at RFPP considering the long-term issues on the page (plus it was pending changes, which does exactly nothing big picture.)
If someone is protecting articles at RFPP for a week, that haven't seen anything but a single vandalizing edit in twice that period, then please draw our attention to the issue so that I may address it on the user's talk page. The rest I'm pretty sure you understand anyway, and so there's really no reason for me to explore it in any detail. Although I'll grant that emphasizing the good block and glossing over the rest is probably the most defensible rhetorical claim to stake out here. That doesn't mean it's a strong argument, because it isn't, but it probably is the best one available. GMGtalk15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly protect articles with no good IP edits in their history, and admins are usually thanked for doing so. Par for the course doesn’t suddenly become an egregious policy violation because the person is requesting a resysop and isn’t particularly active. We’re literally talking about the least effective and lowest level admin action possible (pending changes) on an article with long-term IP and non-autoconfirmed disruption at a slow burning level, but where there were virtually no good edits from IPs dating back years. I personally don’t ever see the point in pending changes, but this is actually the type of situation it was designed for. At the very least, if someone had protected it at RFPP and blocked the most that would have happened was “Meh, judgement call, not worth fighting over because pending changes isn’t a big deal and the block was justified.” He’s resysoped now, and fighting over a year old action that was arguably justified at AN or BN is pointless. I support raising the inactivity criteria to include a logged actions standard, but I do not support making up policy violations that no one cared about at the time in order to try to get around the fact that to dislike the community does not have a stronger stance on inactivity. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently unprotected, and has been unprotected since OP's protection expired nearly five years ago. You really don't have an argument there, and if you want to have a productive discussion, it's probably a good start to stipulate that we don't regularly protect articles over a single instance of vandalism. Otherwise I'm not sure I have patience for all that posturing. But I'm quite sick at the moment, so I don't have very much patience for very much at all. Personally, I'm not fighting over anything. I'm simply patiently waiting for the user to return to the project in earnest as they have indicated, and provide some rationale for their decision making as required by policy. I believe they have been notified of this now four times by four separate users. I figure that, given their activity levels, a month or so is a reasonable time frame for a response. GMGtalk16:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased Master Jay has returned and confirmed their desire for the tools. I've thought and thought and thought but find no reason to withhold the tools based on policy. This is the most extreme case I've yet seen: no valid admin actions in 8 years, but 2 admins actions that technically meet the criteria. It seems I'm not the only one finding this tricky (Crats have posted here with a multiplicity of views) but I would on balance be prepared to return the tools, although I put on record my squirming discomfort at doing so. But Crats have deliberately been constrained by the community to have very little discretion except in very specific areas, and this isn't one of them. I'll do it, if I'm first to it at expiry time, with some distaste. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!09:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Dweller. What would then be the best venue to challenge this situation? AN and ArbCom have been mentioned above. Not challenging the policy-compliant resysop'ing but rather the justification for being a sysop, especially bearing in mind their inactivity and poor use of the tools. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, it should go to AN before ArbCom, since ArbCom requires other steps in dispute resolution to be attempted first. I think there is a massive case for lack of policy knowledge (due to near-total absence for the past 12 years [1]), bad use of tools, gaming, and lack of admin accountability. (Plus even after being emailed with a request to respond to the various concerns here, he effectively has not.) Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFA: "You made less than a 1000 edits in the past 3 months. Sorry, try again later when you've become more active".
BN: "Thank you for your 20 edits in the past 5 years. Here's your bit back".
Regardless of the validity of Jay's request to be reinstated, this ever increasing disparity is probably Wikipedia's biggest running gag. --Atlan (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. To those (generally admins themselves, ironically) who repeatedly wonder/bemoan why good candidates aren't running for RfA, here's a possible answer: why go through the mill for a week when a legacy admin with no intention of rejoining the community gets it for nothing. Yes, it's too bad / just the way it is / so always it has been, etc., but—so is the shortage of admins, so we're told. Wanting cake and eating it springs to mind. ——SerialNumber5412915:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be prepared to wager that for every 1 user who's put off running at RfA by that problem, there'll be several hundred who are put off by unreasonably high standards some RfA !voters have and the occasionally febrile atmosphere and fear over even ancient skeletons in cupboards being seized upon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!16:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but the only choice the Bureaucrats had under policy in this case was to leave it for another Bureaucrat to handle. If you'd like Bureaucrats to have more discretion, we'll need a consensus discussion with a clear result to change policy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: Thanks. For something more hypothetical—but which could theoretically have happened—what if no individual crat was personally willing to action it? Although it is hypothetical (and more curiosity at this stage), a couple of your colleagues indiated theywere not, so it's certainly possible I guess. What would the ex-admin do if no crat replied to their request? Sta on their ands, effectively, and didn't say anything; what recourse would the ex-ad have? ——SerialNumber5412916:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to steer the conversation in that direction, but merely making a comparison. In my view, the inactivity policy requirements are so low as to be nearly ineffectual (as proven in this thread), and the RFA requirements are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. Both are silly, and compared to one another they are sillier yet.--Atlan (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping all admins here would've declined the request...., Nothing against Jay but I whole heartedly disagree with giving the bit to someone who's never ever here, Suppose we only have policy to blame really. –Davey2010Talk16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question, as I have been trying to get up to speed on the history of changes in the inactivity policy and how it relates to those who voluntarily give up the tools to go on a break. When changes such as the one in 2012 were made (see here), was the intention that those who gave up the tools voluntarily, thinking that they would be able to ask for them back at any subsequent point, would be told later that policy had changed and they were now required to do things differently? My reading of the history of the changes is that this is indeed what has happened. Am I right to read it that way, that if policy changes while you are away, that resysop requests are done according to the current policy, rather than policy at the time you went on the break (regardless of how long the break was)? Also, is any attempt made to notify those on a break of such changes in policy if it affects them? Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the admins that were inactive at the time of the implementation of the inactivity policy were notified of the change and given a grace period to return. There were 230 desysops in July 2011. However, it is generally the responsibility of individual editors to know of changes in policy. We do have the Administrators Newsletter, which helps people stay on top of policy changes. Useight (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More generically: as a fluid project, policies may change at any time. Unless a policy change contain specific grandfathering provisions the current policy is the one that should be applied at the time of any action. — xaosfluxTalk17:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So where do we stand? Dweller reluctantly granted him back his tools, feeling that the current rules required it. I commend you for that, Dweller; I could tell you didn't like doing it but felt someone had to. There was some talk here about a CIR- and ADMINACCT- related case at AN. Is someone going to launch one? Right away, or wait to see what he does - will he carry through on his supposed plan to "participate again earnestly"? Will he bother to respond to all the questions he was asked here and on his talk page? Or will he let it go with the three edits he has made and vanish for another year? I would hate to see us all go away and drop it, so he can sit on his unused and unneeded tools until next February, when he makes another couple of edits and retains the bit for another year - and so on ad infinitum. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN, I'm not sure what we can do. As Dweller has correctly pointed out, while the policy may be shittily worded it's still the policy, and Jay is technically completely within his rights to game the system like this. The admin toolset should be much more easy-come-easy-go, but every time changing the rules to tighten the inactivity requirements has been proposed, a swarm of existing admins has come out of the woodwork to oppose it so the discussions get stuck at "no consensus". I'd be very reluctant to set a precedent for sanctioning anyone for following Wikipedia's rules, even when the rules are clearly perverse; besides, Jay is hardly the first legacy admin to make their one token edit when necessary to keep the bit and until we change the rules won't be the last. ‑ Iridescent20:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:ADMINACCT do you think applies here? That procedure is specifically that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools; when someone has no actions, there's by definition nothing for which they can be accountable. ‑ Iridescent20:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were several people here who felt that his last use of admin tools[2] was incorrect or problematic. They asked him about it. He has not addressed their concerns or responded in any way. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, as being highly relevant to the above discussion, please note the following three responses made by Jay on their talk page (after the discussion was closed here): [3], [4], [5]. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you (though the absence of grandfathering clauses does discourage people handing in the tools when going on a long break). Would it be possible to say what the current requirements are for me in terms of activity (both editing and admin actions) if I went inactive now (with or without voluntarily giving up the sysop bit), and how I or any other admin considering going inactive and/or handing in their bit, would work out these requirements (i.e. is the length of time calculated from the point of going inactive or from the last logged action)? Or is it generally considered that active admins should be capable of working this out themselves? The reason I ask is that the current wording of the policy seems to imply that if an admin has had no logged actions for over five years (but has been editing), and they voluntarily give up their bit, then they are also giving up the right to request the bit back and have to go through RfA again. I am not sure this is actually what was intended, but I think the current wording does imply that. (If this should be a new section, feel free to create that.) Also, would my talk page be the only place I would get notified of any changes to this inactivity policy? Thank you for the reminder about the Administrators' newsletter. Carcharoth (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: the verbiage of the updates to the newer '5 year rule' was a bit clumsy, and the last time it was discussed the current summary was born: For any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request. In this case it doesn't matter how/why someone stopped being an admin. — xaosfluxTalk17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far does someone have to personally deliver policy change news to you: nope (there is no policy that requires such :D ) - though things like ADMINNEWS usually to carry this information. — xaosfluxTalk17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, where was that discussion of the verbiage to the five year rule? The original RFC was to apply that five year rule only to former administrators who were desysopped for inactivity, not voluntary removal. That is to say, an admin who hadn't made a logged edit in five years, requested tool-removal on BN, and then requested them back the next day, would get them back. Useight (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original RFC was extremely unclear. The originator of the RFC used confusing language that resulted in a "No" !vote being a vote in support of a policy change. Several early expressions of support (er, "No" !votes) offered tweaks to the wording, and the closing summary was a broader change than the original proposal. I believe that the closing summary -- that adminship should not automatically be restored when 5 years has elapsed between the last logged action and the request for restoration of access -- is a reasonably accurate reading of the community sentiment at the time of the RFC. My updates to the policy page reflected that. UninvitedCompany22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies. The original wording was added here (byLourdes). The change that UninvitedCompany made is here. The major change by UninvitedCompany in the wording is to the status of those who request voluntary removal. Previously, those who requested voluntary removal could ask for the tools back at any time. This has been changed to this '5-year rule' regardless of whether the tools were removed for inactivity or voluntarily given up. This was clearly not the intent of the original RfC. I am pinging Beeblebrox (who started that RfC) and the closer (Fish and karate) to try and get this clarified. The question I am trying to get a clear answer to is whether an admin who is actively editing but not using the tools, and voluntarily gives them up, will be affected by this five-year rule? It may be that a further RfC is needed to clarify this, and that in the meantime the previous wording should be restored. On a slightly pedantic point, can a request to give up the admin tools (which will get logged by the bureaucrat action) be considered a 'logged admin action'? Technically, no, but it does show that the admin is active and taking an action in relation to their tools. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carcharoth. What Uninvited has done with their edit is in the spirit of the connected RfC; but the fact is that the said RfC never focused on the voluntary stuff. Revert till clarified by consensus. Lourdes11:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the RFC as I saw it, how that translates into changes to Wikipedia:Administrators wasn't really in the scope of the RFC, but I would say two things - one, the RFC covered inactivity-removals only, so whether that five year requirement should also extend to those who have voluntarily handed in the bit is not determined within the RFC I closed, and two, the amount of times this will ever practically matter is going to be really, really small, we're now talking about edge cases of edge cases. On the pedantic point, I would say no, a request to give up the tools is not a logged admin action by the (former) administrator in question, it's a logged action by the bureaucrat who fulfilled the request. Fish+Karate13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about edge cases. I found the admins-by-editing-activity tracking pages, but are there statistics anywhere tracking admins by logged admin actions, and is there a list anywhere of former admins (desysopped for inactivity) who have to go back through RfA because they have now crossed the threshold established by these 3-year and 5-year rules (maybe no-one has yet, but I suspect some former admins will have crossed this threshold), or is this checked on a case-by-case basis by bureaucrats for each re-sysop request? I suspect there may be some former admins who gave up the tools voluntarily, who also fall under these 3-year and 5-year rules, but am not about to try and check that myself. It shouldn't be impossible for someone to extract the data and do the calculations, though. I did try and do a table listing the various combinations of active vs inactive, voluntary desysp vs inactivity desysop, and 3 years editing inactivity and/or 5 years admin inactivity, but it was taking too long. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: the table below may be what you are looking for, resigned admins that are not totally inactive from editing, but whose last admin action is 5+ years ago that we would currently refer to WP:RFA. — xaosfluxTalk14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Table of resigned admins with no admin actions in 5 years from now
Examples: The list of 78 admins here: Special:PermaLink/884252872 are examples of current admins, that have had 0 logged actions in 5+ years, but have at least one edit in the last 13 months so haven't been removed for inactivity. Under the 5 year rule wording above if they stop being an admin they would need to ask for it back via WP:RFA. This was a fast query, and the actual number may be higher (as this query counted any logged action, not just administrative logged actions). — xaosfluxTalk14:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On a practical matter, the notification given to the admins who have their permissions removed due to inactivity may need to be updated to be more specific (or at least link to the relevant section). Currently the wording is 'Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN'. That example is from the talk page of a former admin who is still lurking and left this message. They went inactive around a year ago and may not be following the current discussions and may not be fully aware that there are 3-year (reset to 9 February 2022 by that edit) and 5-year thresholds (22 November 2023) after which they will have to go via RfA rather than this noticeboard (BN), though that is unlikely in this case, I think. Thanks for the two lists. By table, I meant a flow chart of the various possibilities presented as generic outcomes. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "subject to..." section you referenced above should cover the edge cases - we expect administrators to be able to look at the admin policy. — xaosfluxTalk14:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of the 3-year and 5-year limits. Honestly, if I reach that point, I doubt I'd ever be looking for the tools back, either due to being gone for good or just happily editing without them. The limits are pretty prominently posted in the resysopping section of the administrator policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged here, just chiming in that it was not my understanding that the five-year rule applied in the case of voluntary removal. It probably should, but I deliberately aimed low with the proposal because it has been so difficult to make any changes to this policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not sure where to go from here. I would like to see the inconsistency in how the voluntary removal of tools is handled sorted out, but I am also aware that there are ongoing discussions elsewhere, to which UninvitedCompany has just recently added (in his own words) a wall of text. So what is best to do? To continue here to ask for the situation with regards to the thresholds for re-requesting tools in relation to the voluntary removal of tools (as opposed to removal for total inactivity) to be clarified, or to raise it over there (which may get lost in the noise)? Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could. But I am disillusioned that despite pointing out that this change was made without consensus, and numerous people saying that the ultimate change made was not what was originally proposed, no-one seems willing to admit to having made a mistake here and reverting until a clearer consensus can be gained. One of the comments in the original RfC stated: "The proposal should also specify whether admins who voluntarily resigned not under a cloud can ask the tools back without an RFA and during which period this could happen. Otherwise, if it passes, it might lead to inconsistencies." It feels like when a mistake is made, that those pointing it out have to do the work, rather than those who made the mistake. It feels like a bureaucrat acting as a super-user to make changes based on their re-interpretation of an RfC, rather than having to do an RfC to ascertain what the actual consensus is. I will leave a note at WT:ADMIN and see if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can make an immediate good faith common sense revert of the "voluntary" part. There's no need to wait for reverting something that was added without consensus. Lourdes10:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, I'm just coming across this discussion now. My goal in the original edit was clarity, not any meaningful change in policy. I am pleased that the policy is finally receiving the attention it deserves, and hope that we can do something with the original text to improve it even if the more substantial changes under discussion at the new RFC are not adopted. I believe that the idiosyncrasies of the policy -- particularly, the separate treatment of resignations from inactive admins; and the way some of the time periods are calculated -- are just artifacts of the way it was drafted and changed by RFCs over the years. If we wish to retain those, I believe we should still make the policy clearer, by breaking out how it affects former admins based on the circumstances of their departure. UninvitedCompany18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 50 admins in Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/resigned who resigned in good standing the remaining resigned in during arbcom cases and other issues which may come in "controversial circumstances" or are already in long term inactive.Out of this 50 around 15 are eligible to be resysoped currently there are around 35 cannot under the 5 year rule.Now if one is saying there will be no 5 Year rule then anyone who resigned at any time in good standing then a user like Stephen Gilbert who resigned in 2004 can come and ask back for his tools.It was open from 31 December 2017 to 3 March 2018 for a considerable period of time and was posted in WP:CENT and consensus was clearly in favour. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, I don't expect Stephen to come ask to be admin fifteen years after he resigned, and I don't think he'd be shocked when his request wasn't acted on. The fact that only fifteen users are even eligible makes them a fringe case in of itself. I think bureaucrats could handle those fifteen cases should they arise, which isn't a frequently occurring problem. — MoeEpsilon15:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree that even if none of them wanted the tools back, it would have been courteous to notify those former admins that this change had removed their right to re-request the tools and that they would have to go to RfA instead? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer to that question depends on whether you see adminship as an entitlement given as a reward to favored contributors, or as something granted based on the needs of the project. Historically, we've always acted like it's the former and claimed it's the later. UninvitedCompany18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for a more specific answer. You made that change. You said in your edit summary that "The intent is that the actual policy remain unchanged". In fact, your change did change the policy and did change the status of those former admins. Would you, personally, agree or disagree that it would have been courteous to notify those former admins that your change had removed their right to re-request the tools and that they would have to go to RfA instead? This might seem a small deal now, but later changes might affect far more people and cause a lot of ill-feeling if not done more carefully. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just opining here - but for anyone who wants to wave to no big deal banner - why would there be an issue for someone to run an 'I'm back and ready to help again' RfA - wouldn't you expect the same NBD support there? — xaosfluxTalk18:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per my RfA, I am requesting to be an interface administrator. See my answers to RfA questions 1, 5, and 12's followup, and scripts I've made. Specifically, I am thinking of proposing XFDcloser and Rater as gadgets, once I've sorted out most (or at least more) of the bugs, refactored some of the mess in the code, and perhaps improved the interfaces. I am also still thinking about making code more reusable, i.e. storing libraries of functions as scripts in MediaWiki: namespace – similar in intent to a draft proposal I had, but using existing (orupgraded) MediaWiki functionality. - Evad37[talk]00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course this isn't a vote, but I'll use this to promote my hobby-horse: why are Javascript gadgets maintained in MediaWiki, rather than in a system that allows for 21st-century source control and code review, such as Git?power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to comment here to help you review this request, but I do want to add that Evad37 has by all accounts built one of the most complex OOUI tools out there. At least half of what I know about OOUI has come from stealingcopying studying his code, and he would be hard to replace. ~ Amory(u • t • c)01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of weeks ago, Enterprisey set the record for fastest admin-to-int-admin in the west. Mop granted 3:06 pm 26 January, imop requested 2:29 pm 29 January, elapsed time just under 72 hours. And now here we have Evad, mop granted 4:51 pm 17 February, imop requested 4:24 pm 19 February, elapsed time just under 48 hours. Another new record! Who’ll be next? 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bureaucrats, I would kindly like to request my desysopping. I was elected administrator in 2005 and was very active for several years. Then my involvement waxed and waned (also due to my involvement in Wikidata, where I was a sysop as well). In the last few years I have been too busy with work and other projects, so I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a long time. It is sad for me to abandon the adminship, but I have to admit that despite my best intentions I am no longer able to perform my duties as an administrator. Therefore I would like to request my desysopping, effective immediately. Maybe one day I will be back, but that day is not today. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 11:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Mushroom: thank you for the note, in case you haven't been following there is much discussion regarding the post-resignation options for admins that could return in the future. Currently, if you keep editing and return before 2022-12-04 you can ask for reinstatement here, however like most things policies change over time and this option may not be available after a continuing absence. You can always ask for reinstatement at WP:RFA. Hope to still have you around in whatever capacity you have time for! Best regards, — xaosfluxTalk13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been a point of personal pride that I had the opportunity to contribute to such an incredible project as this one, particularly with enough faith from the community that I eventually wielded the mop. But I haven't been able to keep up with my contributions like they once were - life can be like that - so while I might someday try to come back and help out again, it isn't for the foreseeable future. Since I am generally inactive, it makes sense that I have my sysop role removed. --PeruvianLlama(spit)18:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note:Master Jay, please note, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests. Everyone else, please note that this is not the best place to discuss changes to the inactivity policy, however there is a currently running RfC (Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards) where such input is being solicited. Furthermore, if you think there are any policy based reasons why this request should be declined please let us know. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I urge Master Jay to read what I wrote on his user talk very carefully indeed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
