Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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.

Click here to add a new section

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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	146	0	0	100	Open	00:35, 15 June 2024	3 days, 2 hours	no	report

It is 21:38:06 on June 11, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Question on "clouds"

Hi bureaucrats. I want to make sure my interpretation of policy here is accurate. If an administrator puts themselves up for a "reconfirmation" RfA and fails, is that considered to be a cloud in itself? I would think no. In a hypothetical circumstance where an admin has no recent history of abuse or poor judgement and yet resigns after a failed reconfirmation, could they request the mop back at any time? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say not a cloud, but also a failed reconfirmation RfA would mean loss of admin rights. They should be only returned after a successful RfA Worm^TT(talk) 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a failed reconfirmation RfA, though? In the past, bureaucrats haven't closed them and have refused to recognize them because there is no policy that makes any mention of them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no mechanism under which a reRfA can be binding, any resignation that stems from it must be voluntary, thus so would be reinstatement (barring any other ongoing issues at the time of the reRfA). It stands to reason that someone willing to undergo a reRfA out of their own free will would abide by its outcome just as willingly, and thus would be fine with going through a new RfA to recover the bit, but I don't think current policy can make any of that anything other than voluntary. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The responses to this so far have focused on the admin not resigning after failing reconfirmation or the admin resigning but later asking to be reinstated. But what if the admin resigns and declares himself to be resigning under a cloud? Beside the failed reconfirmation case, this could also come up in a case where an admin does something that he knows will lead to a desysopping but which hasn't been discovered yet (perhaps someone contacted him privately and he knows that the secret is about to be revealed, or perhaps his conscience is weighing on him). In such a case the admin may wish to resign under a cloud and avoid the embarrassment of everyone finding out what he did. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd think it would put us in a messy situation policy-wise, especially if it was a voluntary reconfirmation RfA for a sitting admin, that then did not voluntarily resign. @Worm That Turned: for example if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 were to close as 'no consensus' (i.e. not "successful" (how about "withdrawn"?)) are you prepared to revoke the admin bit without a voluntary statement by the "candidate"? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no remit to remove the bit in that situation - but I'd certainly be putting pressure on for that voluntary statement. Worm^TT(talk) 23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think cloud is the right word. Because the whole process is voluntary, the editor in question could choose to forego the administrator role based on any level of support that the editor felt was insufficient, even if there is still an overall consensus in support of the editor retaining administrative privileges. Instead I believe the editor should be giving up administrative privileges with the express condition that they not be restored unless the editor submits a successful request for administrative privileges in future. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But would the bureaucrats honor it? Even if the admin later said that he changed his mind and now wanted to be reinstated without a successful RfA? --Guy Macon (talk)

I see no reason why the explicitly stated commitment should be ignored, as a decision to relinquish administrative privileges is not one undertaken lightly. In addition, upholding one's commitments is an essential part of maintaining the community's trust. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that if an admin failing a reconfirmation RfA is controversial circumstances that precludes restoration of the position. That would include: (i) a serving admin submits themselves for reconfirmation, doesn’t get community support and resigns as a result; and (ii) an admin who resigned under uncontroversial circumstances who submits an RfA instead of just asking for restoration of their rights and the RfA is unsuccessful. In my view, neither of these users who be eligible to have their adminship restored without a new - successful - RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

PS. I seem to remember (I think the candidate was Majorly) that an admin who resigned, ran a new RfA, then withdrew when it was obviously failing once divided bureaucrat opinion on this topic. Someone may be able to fish out the relevant threads from the archives... WJBscribe (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Like magic :). I see Majorly pressed me on the point - see question 7 of my RfB. WJBscribe (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree in general with WJBscribe, that an actual unsuccessful RfA or substantially RfA like process would disqualify automatic resysoping (under the specifically prevented by prior community consensus clause). If there were a situation where an admin had previously pledged to recall conditions and then failed a recall measure but did not volunteer to resign - I suspect ArbCom would get involved in evaluating any remedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don’t see a role for bureaucrats if an admin fails a recall measure but refuses to resign. WJBscribe (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe and xaosflux. A voluntary reRFA that fails would disqualify an editor from resysopping (in other words, it would be considered a "cloud"). I also agree that 'crats have no authority (per policy) to remove an admin bit if someone fails a reRFA and refuses to resign. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's something to think about. Administrator A fails reRFA and Bureaucrat B removes the bit when Administrator A refuses to resign. What happens next? It's not like Bureaucrat B acted against community consensus based on the reRFA. I would imagine two things would happen: (a) a precedent would be set and (b) Bureaucrat B would keep his bit after at least a requests for arbitration but perhaps not a full case. Of course, you would need to find a Bureaucrat B who is foolhardy enough to unleash a shitstorm like that upon himself. :p Maxim_(talk) 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, someone who wants this to be a thing needs to run a well-publicized RfC to modify current policy. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-bureaucrat comment Precedent can only be set where policy is ambiguous. This case is very unambiguous - bureaucrats do not have the authority to desysop in cases other than voluntary resignation, ArbCom decision, inactivity, or in the case of a deceased Wikipedian (IAR probably permits emergency desysopping as well). The consensus from the two relevant RfCs (one and two) is that bureaucrats should only use their desysop powers in the cases explicitly defined by the community. Rather than setting precedent, I think that a bureaucrat desysopping an admin following a reRFA would be a highly contentious action that would probably be reverted. I think that for a reRFA result to be enforced, there would need to be explicit community consensus granting that authority to bureaucrats. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

AJ is almost certainly correct, though I think the idea of having such a ridiculously high bar at RfB is that we get bureaucrats who aren't daft enough to do that kind of thing. Having said that, I would hope an admin decent enough to submit themselves for reconfirmation would be decent enough to give up he bit if it was clear they no longer had the confidence of the community. Where an admin relinquishes their bit before running a reconfirmation RfA, I would imagine the 'crats would be on firm policy ground by refusing to restore the bit if the RfA was unsuccessful. I was daft enough to do this a few years ago and wouldn't have expected the bit back if the RfA had been unsuccessful. It's a shame we don't have a better process for admins to get feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Committee on this, but I would personally be extremely concerned with a bureaucrat attempting to make policy (e.g. a "precedent") on reconfirmation RfAs through the use of their tools. I doubt any of you are seriously considering that beyond an intellectual exercise, but I'd certainly prefer that you not go there. Someone would be without the mop at the end of such a situation, and it's at best a toss-up whether it would be the bureaucrat or the desysopped admin. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine a situation where, after a failed recon RfA, there would not be a CratChat before this hypothetical desysopping, so any such action would have the consensus of the 'Crats. If brought to ArbCom, it would be the mother of all ArbCom cases - the Committee against the 'Crats, and I couldn't see the Committee survive if they tried to sanction a 'Crat for acting under both community and 'Crat consensus. SilkTork (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

To my mind, an admin refusing to honour a recall commitment by resigning after a failed re-RFA is more naturally a matter for ArbCom than us bureaucrats. If ArbCom wouldn't pull the bits in those circumstances, then it sits uneasily for us to "fill the gap" through some sort of IAR use of our desysop powers. Maxim may be right that a bureaucrat who did so might hang on to his bureaucrat rights by the skin of his teeth, but I don't think it would do much for community confidence in us as a whole... WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Kinda the whole point of the ‘crats is that they don’t act without a mandate or a rule backing them up, and they have neither in this situation. Seems moot in this case anyway as the rfa is clearly going to pass. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Separately, I'm vaguely wondering whether it's permissible for any editor to close such a reconfirmation RfA as completely not based in policy, redirecting the "candidate" to admin review. Hmm. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia: Administrator Review was closed due to lack of interest some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if there's renewed interest, it can be revived. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• • In my view, no. There's no policy against them, they just may not be binding if the admin chooses not to resign at the end. WJBscribe (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'm surprised bureaucrats think a failed reconfirmation RfA is a "cloud" for the purposes of returning the mop. This begs the question: what is failure? Is it anything below consensus that would give the mop in the first place? If so, do bureaucrats get in the business of "de facto" closing reconfirmations in the discretionary zone because they have to make a determination of consensus or not? Is it consensus against (e.g. overwhelming opposition)? Is it whatever the close is done as, using whatever unknown metric the closer (possibly the admin being reconfirmed themselves!) decided upon? This is tricky business to give weight to a process not defined in any policy or guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As the whole process is voluntary, the editor in question is the sole determinant of what level of support he/she deems sufficient to continue in the role of administrator. If the editor wants the relinquishment of the role to have any meaning, the editor should specify the express condition that the privileges cannot be restored until the editor successfully requests the privileges again. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many scenarios that could be in play, and event sequencing would matter. To get get more clarification you would need to present a detailed timeline. One reading I'm getting is an example of AdminA resigning normally, this being completed, AdminA not becoming lengthily inactive, later not asking to be summarily resysoped, then starting an RfA-2, then not passing RfA-2, then asking to be summarily resysoped anyway. In this case the newly emerged community consensus to not promote is what I would honor. Another crat may decide to proceed with the request. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Xaosflux: I'm thinking more about reconfirmation RfAs while they hold the mop. To throw out an "extreme" example, say an admin runs for reconfirmation. They get 90 supports and 10 opposes, something that would easily pass a normal RfA. They resign, saying they found the opposes convincing and doubted their own ability as an admin. They later ask for the mop back. This is a "failed" reconfirmation RfA, as determined by the candidate themselves, but would bureaucrats refuse to return the mop to someone with 90% support at a reconfirmation? Now consider the same scenario with exactly 74.5% support, at the upper end of the discretionary range. Would you return the mop? Does it depend on your reading of the discussion? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I think it would depend on reading as RfA's aren't "votes" anyway. Also keep in mind "my" inaction (in not resysoping) is always allowed - enforcing a non-resysoping would require basically every crat not acting. If reconfirmation RfA's are going to be a thing, a community policy for how to use the results should be further defined. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• I want to throw a wrench into this neat thinking and offer the following: a failed reconfirmation RFA may be a cloud depending on what it says. If the community brings up a policy dispute or sound reasoning based on the admin's actions or behavior to fail the reconfirmation RFA, that is a cloud if the admin then resigns under the weight of those issues raised. If we have opposing comments along the lines of, "I oppose all self-noms" or "reconfirmation RFAs are self-indulgent and disruptive," I would urge any admin not to resign on that basis. It might technically still be a cloud, but bureaucrats weigh arguments and reconfirmation-runners should do the same. However, I can imagine a hypothetical scenario where an admin resigned after a reconfirmation RFA but it was not a cloud, because no policy-based arguments were raised against that admin. It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis" so long as the crat performing the desysopping had a policy-based discussion and closing that it was not a cloud in such a case. Of course, we can solve this problem by a) not resigning and b) not having reconfirmation RFAs to begin with. Andrevan@ 08:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  But we wouldn't close such a hypothetical re-RfA as unsuccessful, would we? If the admin runs a re-RfA here, it's subject to bureaucrat discretion to determine the outcome. If the only ground of opposition is "I object to re-RfAs" there is clearly a consensus for the user to remain an admin, so it would closed as successful. WJBscribe (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Agreed, but a reconfirmation before resignation wouldn't be closed by bureaucrats, right? Andrevan@ 08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Correct. Technically, a reconfirmation is not an RfA since they already have adminship. It would need to be closed by someone else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  We need someone who is sort of but not really a crat? Sounds like a job for User:Aardvark Floquenbeam! 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ach, das Floquenvark! :o >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

According to Xaosflux, above at 19:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC): If there were a situation where an admin had previously pledged to recall conditions and then failed a recall measure but did not volunteer to resign - I suspect ArbCom would get involved in evaluating any remedy.
According to WJBscribe, above at 12:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC): an admin refusing to honour a recall commitment by resigning after a failed re-RFA is more naturally a matter for ArbCom than us bureaucrats.
I don't know if there is a recent precedent, but I am sure there have been successful recall efforts where the admin declined to resign and ArbCom did nothing (Elonka comes to mind), so we are already well past the point where this issue ceased to be theoretical. Harrias' reRfA is not going to bring it to a head as the result will clearly be successful, but this topic is not going away and relying on ArbCom is an arbitrary given its changing composition and unsatisfactory for a community accountability mechanism given ArbCom already have desysopping authority. I think seeking to construct a principled mechanism with authority for bureaucrats to act without an impending crisis is much more desirable than trying to build one on-the-fly in the face of a crisis, a community spit in its views, and an admin fighting to preserve her or his mop. EdChem (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: for reference, can you provide example links to both the failed reconfirmation, and the declined case request? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I found the case decline, Special:PermaLink/234867942#Elonka. That was almost 10 years ago and the new committee may be more open to review, however I agree that a prior community policy update is much preferred. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't say how other arbs would respond, but I would decline any case that stems solely from an admin not following through on recall or a reconfirmation RfA. Both things have no basis in policy, and the Arbitration Committee cannot form policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Even that old example had a decline note in that how the case is requested is important, a case would need to be opened under a policy based complaint such as WP:ADMINACCT, the research used by objectors may be available as evidence if they were not baseless. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rob₁₃, I'm concerned by your comment that "I would decline any case that stems solely from an admin not following through on recall or a reconfirmation RfA." The declines in the Elonka case make much of a lack of a specific example of tool misuse, but ArbCom's since that time have recognised that there may be a case or even a desysopping in the absence of specific tool misuse where an admin has lost the trust of the Committee or engaged in conduct unbecoming of / inconsistent with the role of administrator. Can you imagine a case request where an administrator had failed a recall attempt or reRfA but had not engaged in alleged tool misuse, alleged conduct unbecoming, or potentially lost the trust of the arbitrators? Xaosflux mentions that framing of case requests is important, which I recognise is an issue, though I see as disappointing in that I would hope arbitrators could recognise a potential case in such circumstances no matter how the sides attempt to frame it. I think a recall attempt that has satisfied the admin's own criteria or a reRfA that has failed are evidence of a loss of trust from the community, so simply declining a case on the grounds that those actions are unenforceable is tantamount to declaring the support of the community is irrelevant to any editor continuing as an administrator. It also leaves the bureaucrats in the unenviable position of doing nothing about someone who has lost the trust of the community knowing that ArbCom may similarly doing nothing, or respecting the will of the community knowing that ArbCom may decide to sanction any bureaucrat that acts. To me, your comments illustrate once again why enWP needs a desysop procedure that does not involve ArbCom at all, and why the admin community collectively are likely to continue to impose oppose _{Correction made after message on my talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)} such an accountability mechanism. Sad _{Note: By this, I meant it makes me sad. EdChem (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)}  :( EdChem (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree fully that the community needs a desysopping policy. The problem is that, in the absence of that, the Arbitration Committee must be careful not to create that policy by fiat. It would very much depend on why the reconfirmation RfA failed. If it failed due to policy violations or a history of poor actions, then we could look at that. The reconfirmation itself would bear no more weight in my mind than a case request supported by several community members, though. We cannot give weight to a process that has no basis in policy without giving that process the weight of a de facto policy. I'm very much concerned with ensuring ArbCom does not act as an "end around" to broader community consensus on the desysopping policy, even if I think that consensus is horrible. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rob₁₃, I do recognise that you have been an advocate for a community-initiated process, thank you, and I agree with you that policy by ArbCom fiat is both problematic and outside its authority. I do have doubts about the notion that there is a present consensus reflecting the community as this is an area where admins and non-admins are in significant disagreement. What we have is a stalemate where the admin community is much less supportive of a policy change and that is sufficient to prevent a community-wide consensus forming despite support well beyond what is needed from the non-admin section of the community. As for my basic concern, it sounds like you agree that a successful recall or failed reRfA could be the basis for a case so long as the reasons were grounded in areas ArbCom would consider, such as tool misuse, loss of trust, conduct unbecoming, etc, and that a recall or reRfA without any of those is theoretical possible but improbable. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically correct, yes. The recall/reconfirmation RfA basically wouldn't factor for me one way or the other. If the recall/reconfirmation RfA was preceded by events that would have prompted me to accept a case in the absence of the recall/reconfirmation RfA, I would still do so after one. The failed recall/reconfirmation RfA wouldn't make me more likely to accept a case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): Recall proposal and related RfC, Xaosflux. I'm not denying that this example is from a long time ago by WP terms, nor do I suggest anything be done about that specific issue now. I am saying that the problem is not new, however, that an ArbCom demonstrated a willingness to choose not to act, and that the possibility of it being dumped to the bureaucrats' doorstep remains possible. That being the case, a crisis necessitating the adoption of a solution may be the only way to force a pathway forwards, but a planned path would be greatly preferable. EdChem (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue can be reopened with a policy RfC (Wikipedia talk:Administrators) at anytime. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it’s been a few years since the last time we tried to have a real community-based desysop or reconfirmation procedure, maybe there’s someone feeling masochistic who wants to try it again, but it has been repeatedly rejected in the past. WP:PEREN#Adminship appears to have a listing of the most recent relevant discussions on this topic. P.S. I am out of the “giant policy RFC” business, but I did draft one for community de-adminship a few years ago in my sandbox and would be happy to restore it and give it to anyone who wanted to use it for reference, as a jumping-off point, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, Beeeblebrox, I doubt anything has changed in the admin community collectively includes enough members who will oppose any such move to make them accountable either to protect themselves or with arguments that they support "in principle" but see the specific proposal as two dangerous / opening to gaming / etc.  :( EdChem (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of strict accuracy, plenty of non-admins shared the same concerns the last time such a proposal came up and support among admins was fairly split the time before that. Besides, "too open to gaming" has been a concern for every proposal so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion has brought up many points that may need additional community input. Please review this list and feel free to add list points here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Notes_regarding_December_2017_reconfirmation_discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Things do change here from time to time, but I think there's a good reason why we have never managed to create a community desysopping policy. Wikipedia admins are volunteers who do a very thankless and demanding job. The community has been happy with ArbCom as a mechanism to stop admins from going rogue. Well-intentioned WP:IAR is encouraged, but a world with mob desysop would be a pretty tricky one to operate in. I have been taken to task many times for doing what I thought made sense, even as a long-time bureaucrat. Sometimes people have legitimate points, other times it's just griefing. I guess I don't see the problem we are trying to solve here. Andrevan@ 17:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Community-initiated desysop processes don't lead to "mob desysop", they just lead to admins being accountable to the community that elected them. With proper safeguards in place, community-initiated processes work very well on Commons, Wikidata, Meta-Wiki, and the German Wikipedia. Anyone holding truly sysop+ level global rights on Wikimedia (editinterface, Pathoschild's global deleter group, stewards) need to go through yearly confirmations, and these processes have never resulted in someone being removed for reasons other than poor performance. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In hindsight, this comment is a bit more soapboxey and unrelated to this discussion than I had hoped. I think that community-initiated desysop processes can and do work, and that the right one might even be supported by the enwiki community. But that's a discussion for another location. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• According to Andrevan, above: "The community has been happy with ArbCom as a mechanism to stop admins from going rogue."

I think this is a doubtful reading of community views. The link Jo-Jo provided earlier had non-admins !voting in favour of a community-initiated procedure at a rate near 75%. I think the non-admin community are generally very much in favour of a community-initiated (ie. non-ArbCom) desysop procedure. EdChem (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• So to be clear, based on comments from a couple of crats above, is it correct that since this isn't a "real" RFA, the crats in general would prefer a non-crat close this one? Or is there a crat willing to? If crats decide they don't want to, don't think I'm trying to call dibs; I was going to close it, but decided I don't want to do so without a few more crats confirming this, since I'm about to be computer-less for +/- 24 hours and don't want to confuse things and then leave. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  Someone else did it already, did not need crat closure. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever way this issue so-called confirmation RFA is looked at, this close is bollocks. '"The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship."' It wasn't an RFA and should not be closed as one.Leaky Caldron 22:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s just the standard boilerplate in the closing template. I don’t think it’s worth continuing to make a big deal about it, I closed it without comment and did not add it to the archive of succesful RFAs, but if the tag is really bothering you that much go ahead and change it, it’s not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How about YOU doing it since you have got it fundamentally wrong? It was not a "boilerplate" RFA so why have you closed it without recognising the issues which have been raised concerning the validity of this so called RFA. You have created a precedent. Leaky Caldron 22:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t see it that way and, again, don’t particularly care one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2#Removal from Category:Successful requests for adminship. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2

Late to the party (happy UTC new year!). Some thoughts...
My feeling is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 should not be considered an RfA proper: it was an informal discussion that took the form of an RfA, was hosted in a subpage of WP:RFA, was listed as an RfA, and the community apparently tolerated this - but if this is to become a regular occurrence, an RFC to determine if this is a permissable use of the space should be undertaken (especially given the substantial ambivalence shown in the neutral section, general comments, and talk page discussion).
"Under a cloud" is a rather subjective term, and I think it should be removed from Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship and replaced with either the language used on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats process page or better, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels (I think I've made this argument before).
I agree that bureaucrats do not have a mandate to involuntarily desysop an administrator who stood for reconfirmation but held onto their tools despite the outcome; first, because it's not one of the permitted situations - but also because there is no established consensus on what level of support (or opposition) would constitute success/failure. (Are we being more lenient, because they might have cultivated adversaries merely from taking good and proper administrative actions, or more strict because there is an existing body of administrative work available for review that shifts the burden of proof?)
I agree that the resignation of an administrator either a) immediately prior to an RfA that a bureaucrat closes as unsuccessful (I would consider this a bona fide RfA) or b) resigned following a an "informal re-confirmation discussion held in a subpage of WP:RFA" (such as Harrias 2) should be considered "controversial circumstances" and the administrator would not be eligible for simple restoration of privileges.
On a community de-sysop process apart from arbitration, I modified one of EVula's proposals some time ago, but was convinced by Risker (at User talk:Xeno/Archive 31#Additional bureaucrat tasks) not to bring it forward for consideration. It can be viewed at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul if anyone is interested in either developing it further or presenting it to the community as it. –xeno^talk 01:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 3 was closed as successful by Andrevan, a bureaucrat, and pads the statistics for successful RfAs in Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2011. Is there any substantial difference between that RfA and the recently closed one? wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, the difference is that HJ Mitchell was not an administrator at the time of that RfA. –xeno^talk 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, if you resign the bit first and then run RFA, that solves the "loophole." Beeblebrox solving the loophole by closing it -- well, he's just this guy, you know? Now, unless anyone has any last words, let's close THIS discussion, shall we? Happy New Year, Wikipedia hasn't fallen to the trolls yet, and it won't.

Andrevan@ 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the header template on the Harrias reconfirmation discussion (it is not an actual RfA since he's already an admin) to refelect that it is not an RfA. I would prefer the discussion itself be moved out of the RfA area in order to avoid future confusion on that point. I have not moved it, however, as that might cause all kinds of issues. Thoughts? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with moving the request, certainly not after it has concluded. There's been some suggestion that this request should have been closed/moved early, potential by us as bureaucrats. To address that in passing, I didn't do it because I see no consensus against people running reconfirmation RfAs in the manner that Harrias did. As a purely factual matter they have happened in the past - see the list at Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations. I agree that there is no consensus in favour of them either, and so their status (and consequences) are dubious and a matter for speculation. That may not be satisfactory, but I am no more willing to create a policy that they cannot occur through early closing/moving out of the RfA namespace etc than I would be to create policy that are valid by closing such a request as unsuccessful and removing +sysop to give effect to the discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I just restored the 21:40, 1 January 2018‎ version. We need to decide this by discussion and consensus, not reverting and edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No one, apart from you, has reverted! There was already agreement from the closer to amend this "It’s just the standard boilerplate in the closing template. I don’t think it’s worth continuing to make a big deal about it, I closed it without comment and did not add it to the archive of succesful RFAs, but if the tag is really bothering you that much go ahead and change it, it’s not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) " Why are so so insistent about this? Leaky Caldron 15:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good news, you're on the path to Wiki-immortality with this one. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: So, despite your comment about not reverting, you have reverted my change? How about you live by your own declarations? This wasn't an actual RfA since he was already an admin. You can request to be given what you already have, sure, but everyone will think you're nuts and question your sanity. It was merely a non-binding discussion (non-binding because there is no policy to back it up). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, looking at the previous discussions listed at Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations, the standard template has mostly been used in the past... WJBscribe (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - RfC

Very late to this party and TLDR but my view would be that if a reconfirmation RfA like Harrias's ended badly or as no-consensus, in the absence of a clearly-worded resignation, we'd need an RfC to determine policy.

This would inevitably be messy, as we'd be rightly accused of making policy after the fact.

I suggest we run an RfC now, when we don't need it, so we have policy if we do.

I'm no good at writing such things but it would be great if someone would set one up.

I really hope this happens and I'm not back trawling through archives in a year or so, looking for this post and saying 'told you so'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dweller, as I've mentioned on WT:ADMINS, the simplest solution here is to update WP:ADMIN to clarify that an RfA is for non-administrators to become admins. This is already the community consensus as the community has not allowed for them to be used in any other purposes, and for the last two 'crats have specifically declined to close them. There would be an RfC needed to change the policy from this point, but a wording change to clarify the existing policy would not require one. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion for the status quo, but my point remains that we should sort this out properly for the future. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If people want the status to change to allow it, sure. I don't want the status to change. It shouldn't be incumbent upon those who support the status quo to start an RfC to document what everyone agrees is the status quo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• New proposal: Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Alternative proposal: requiring resignation before a new RfA. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is all so ridiculous. An admin's RfA should be shut down as NOT NOW regardless of whether they resign their tools, unless they have resigned "under a cloud" (whatever that means) and we have confirmation from the bureaucrats that they regard it as a legitimate, binding RfA. If an admin can drop off their tools, and then later get them back, just for the asking, then they are not a legitimate candidate. The recent RfA should have been shut down, so as not to waste the time of editors who might have mistakenly taken it for a serious RfA. Mitchell's RfA from years ago should have been shut down on this basis too. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What the heck is this? Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations. Where is the policy supporting that?? First time I've seen that, though in the back of my mind I recall talk of voluntary reconfirmations? How the heck is that supposed to work if only ArbCom can resign an admin "under a cloud"? wbm1058 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: It's a list. We don't need a policy to create a list. If you want to find out why it was created, you're welcome to ask Tim Smith, as he created it. Also, please calm down. There's no reason to get all worked up about this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry. That should just be marked as {{Historical}} then. Just my opinion. wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't mark it as historical without first getting consensus for a policy (not just an opinion) that we no longer allow them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The page looks to me to be a purely factual list. If desirable, it can be edited to make clear that there is no applicable policy or community consensus for these reconfirmation discussions, but nevertheless it is a fact that they have occurred. Marking {{Historical}} makes no sense when a recent discussion has been added to the list. For completeness, it might be worth adding to the page (and renaming it if necessary) occasions where administrators resigned for the purpose of then submitting themselves for a reconfirmation RfA instead of just re-requesting the access rights. WJBscribe (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Inactive Admin Notifications

Resolved

 – See section below. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I was just looking at the WP:INACTIVE page and noticed that the second notifications have not been made for the three admins listed for the January 2018 group. I don't know if they are due yet or not. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, bot is probably down again - will send manually. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Send, will close in a couple of days if still inactive. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Dolotta: and others, there appears to have been another bot problem and a list of inactives were left off for January processing. I have added them and sent notifications for Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#February_2018. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being on top of things Xaosflux! -- Dolotta (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#January_2018

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#January_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Dana boomer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Deltabeignet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Grandiose (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Desysop

It goes without saying that this is not a simple resignation but a desysop for cause (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Proposed decision) but I'd still like for the admin bit to be removed right away instead of waiting for the case to "formally" close. I've made my peace and wish to move on without delay. If you wanna keep the thread open to await the formal ArbCom request be my guest, but please rip the bit off now. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I'd like to retain pending changes reviewer, new pages reviewer, autopatrolled, template editor, page mover, extended confirmed user (which might be automatic?), but if you think that automatically keeping one or more of these post-desysop is liable to be controversial, leave them off, I know the way to PERM. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(Obviously involved) but mentioning that retaining the NPR flag when an AfC topic ban has passed would likely be controversial. I would obviously recuse from any PERM request, but AfC removal and the reasons behind it is something that I personally take into account when reviewing NPR requests, and I believe other admins do as well there. Any ‘crat is if course free to disagree and Salv hasn’t been banned from reviewing new pages, but I do think the AfC TBAN is worth noting on that one. No comments on the others. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Non-bureaucrat comment It's one thing to resign, but to resign immediately after the proposed decision on desysop just reached majority ([1]), simply appears very dubious. Obviously this is going to be under the cloud, while unfortunately there is precedent ([2]) for regular user rights to be kept, explicitly asking for them here is rather distasteful in my opinion. Ultimately this is up to the discretion of the bureaucrat that processes the request. Alex Shih (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Let it go for PERM if preferred. NPR is about using the Curation Toolbar and has nothing to do with AfC but I'm in no position to argue right now. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In the light of all that's happened, I don't believe NPR or autopatrolled are now compatible with Salv's account. Not that I believe for a momemnt that he would abuse them, but the formality IMO is a procedural necessity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the sensible thing to do would be to remove the bit and give the uncontentious rights, which, I think, are all the ones Salvidrim listed except NPR, which can be properly and thoroughly discussed at the appropriate venue, i.e. not here. I'll make the change now. Whether it is or is not "distasteful" or honourable, or somewhere in between to resign the rights before having them stripped is POV and should play no part in this discussion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dweller I think autopatrolled would be controversial too - not having someone check his articles. There was still some support for a total prohibition of articles into mainspace, and people would want his articles atleast be checked (even though I don't think he's going to do anything bad in the future) Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW autopatrolled doesn't change much for me (just which queue my creations fall into hehe) and I don't create any significant volume of articles so it's unlikely to be any burden on reviewers either. So it's fine being left off if there is any opposition. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm slightly uncomfortable here. If consensus emerged not to have given this permission before, I wouldn't have granted it, but I already granted the permissions before this was raised. It's not definitely obvious that I shouldn't have granted it at the time and in the current case ArbCom do not seem minded to approve restrictions in this area. I therefore think if I stripped it off I'd be going outside of policy and what seems right. I have no doubt at all that ArbCom members will be watching this discussion and if they're unhappy they have the power to make things as they think necessary. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Alternatively, Salvidrim, if you request removal of the right, of course I'll do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal view (ie not on Arbcom's behalf): we voted on removing admin tools and not any other user-right. Unless Salvidrim! volunteers to drop any other tool, there's no scope for their summary removal on the basis of the Arbcom case, or for not granting them if that would otherwise have routinely occurred. That will depend on the bureaucrats discretion, I suppose the point I'm making is the Arbcom case is specific in its remedies and shouldn't of itself be determinative for anything other than admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remove it for now, since it's clearly not uncontroversial. I can always go to PERM at some future time. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 10:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • • •  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)