Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nihonjoe (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 1 February 2023 (→‎Resysop request Jamesday: agreed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

Crat tasks
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 17
Approved BRFAs 0
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
It is 08:44:39 on June 7, 2023, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop request Gimmetrow

Gimmetrow (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) was procedurally deadmined due to inactivity with the big group Jan 1. I have the activity level now and would like the tools back. Gimmetrow 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 24 hour hold per procedure. Gimmetrow was last fully active in 2010: [1]. They have made 100 edits over the past few days. And one admin tool action done a few minutes before they were desysopped: blocking a vandal user for three hours: [2]. That user was indeffed four minutes later by Tamzin. The three hour block for an active vandal, coupled with no block notice on the talkpage, suggests that Gimmetrow would benefit from reviewing current standards such as WP:BLOCKLENGTH and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Given the length of time since the last full engagement with the project, and the uncertainty of the admin action, I would prefer to see Gimmetrow return to activity over a longer period, including becoming involved in discussions related to policy and maintenance, such as AfD, merge requests, etc. SilkTork (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They were active under the alt account User:Gimmetoo from 2010 to 2013. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Gimmetrow - it's great to see you back and around. As SilkTork mentions, we have a 24h holding procedure to assess if your account meets the WP:RESYSOP requirements. I see that you meet all the clearly defined requirements (admin action within a the last 5 years, sufficient edits etc), but there is still the requirement that [b]efore restoring the administrator flag, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.
I'm a little concerned by your request, which focusses on the fact that you are above the threshold for being procedurally desysopped, and says nothing about returning to activity. Can I ask directly, are you intending to return to activity, in what areas, and do you need the admin tools to do so?
Between your statement and the fact that you've made 64 edits in the 84 months month between Oct 2015 and Oct 2022 (when the notifications went out) and then after being desysopped, you've made over 100, I'd like to hear more from you before I'm "reasonably convinced" you are intending to return to activity. WormTT(talk) 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to see a bureaucrat being bureaucratic. What would "resonably convince" you? I have returned to activity and started a task that should involve several thousand edits (to articles). Although need for the admin tools is not mentioned at WP:RESYSOP, I also look at article histories which sometimes means looking at deleted edits. And I can't even edit my own user page at the moment. As an arb you should appreciate that activity is not always logged as on-wiki edits. Gimmetrow 13:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand this isn't the main issue here, but FWIW I've unprotected your user page, so you can edit it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
There are legitimate concerns being brought up about your activity level that don't specifically relate to the amount of logged actions and edits you have made. For instance, there's also the fact that Wikipedia's administrative standards have changed a lot since you were last active in 2010 - WP:ADMINR is a good page to review in this regard, as it highlights some of the policy and cultural changes that have taken place. Certainly, if you return to Wikipedia cognizant of these changes and state your willingness to adapt to them, that would go a long way - but remarks like I'm happy to see a bureaucrat being bureaucratic might convey the wrong message. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not concerned about the bureaucrat being bureaucratic comment - I know I'm being a pain here (as are other 'crats) and I am sure @Gimmetrow can see why we are. I would love to see a long term admin returning to activity, but I do also have to respect the wishes of the wider community with regards to administrator activity.
Now, Gimmetrow is right, activity isn't always logged and my personal logged activity levels are pretty pathetic and have been since I joined arbcom. So I do appreciate where they are coming from. But I am also on record stating that "if I were setting the activity requirements, I would set them higher than my activity level" (I do intend to hand in all my bits when I step down from Arbcom) - so I look for "need for the tools" too, even if it's not visible in the logs.
Anyway, Gimmetrow, I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about your intended project. WormTT(talk) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Bureaucrat being bureaucratic" was meant as a compliment. I'm sure anyone who has looked at my recent edits saw I sourced a bunch of birthdates. Something that should be basic encyclopedic content. Gimmetrow 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the update @Gimmetrow. Given the edits that you've made and intent to focus on a mini-project, combined with your history, I'm satisfied that you intend to return to activity. I would ask that you make sure that the sources you add are not bare urls (to make life easier for other wikipedians).
For your information though Gimmetrow (and other interested editors), I fully expect that the community will be increasing expected activity levels of the administrators in the near future (personally I intend to suggest ~200 per year measured over a 5 year period at some time this summer).
I will allow for more discussion (apologies this is lasting more than 24h Gimmetrow), but absent strong policy based exception, I do intend to return the sysop bit this afternoon. WormTT(talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Endorse, I don't have any reason to think Gimmetrow is not intending to return to activity now; yes if I would have processed those 100 desyops a little quicker we'd be in RFA territory but it is what it is. I don't see questions on if that block was the best block very relevant policy wise. — xaosflux Talk 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I land here also. There is no reason not to return the tools. If the community wish us to withhold the tools from admins returning after a long period of activity then we need better policy based guidance. A user who has gained the community's trust retains that trust until they are desysopped for cause. Being desysopped for inactivity does not indicate a loss of trust, so if a trusted user says they will return to activity, and in addition has fulfilled the activity requirements, then we resysop. It would be helpful if users with particularly long absences would spend a little longer re-engaging with the project than simply meeting the minimum requirement so that we can be sure we are enacting not just the letter of the law but also the spirit, but absent a policy based reason indicating otherwise we have no reason not to resysop Gimmetrow on this request. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 per the above. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that he needs my approbation, but I second Worm's message. And I'd add that it might be better to demonstrate your intentions by rescinding this request and actually editing for a bit before requesting the tools back. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dunno, I could be swayed by a persuasive argument, but on the balance of probabilities I can't argue with your logic. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a good start, but personally I'd want an admin to commit to doing a bit more. Reading deleted edits is fine, but if you aren't using that knowledge to do anything onwiki, it's not productive (and arguably one of many reasons why we should be strict on letting people have the tools indefinitely). You wouldn't need to do much to convince me, but a declaration of intent would go a long way for me over and above meeting conditions. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel, based on the evidence before us, that as Crats we have to make an awkward decision between WP:GAME and WP:FAITH. Some users have expressed concerns about admins gaming the system by making the minimal amount of edits in order to retain their admin status, and yet as time goes by have lost their cutting edge for making the right decisions. As 'Crats we have to decide if Gimmetrow is gaming with their recent 100 edits and single admin action, or if we assume good faith - based on their previous productive work, and a statement of intent, that they are genuine about engaging once again with the project. I want experienced and productive admins to return, so I'd prefer not to make that choice - I'd prefer to see the evidence of Gimmetrow's positive re-engagement and then resysop. That way there is no doubt, there is no dubious decision, and there is no controversy.
@Gimmetrow. Your admin action was done just minutes before you were desysopped. If you had waited 43 minutes we would not be having this conversation as you'd have to go via RfA to get the tools back. As that was your first admin action in over eight years, and it came at a time when you were about to be desysopped, the optics are not good, so a resysop at this point, with so little evidence of your re-engagement with the project would be controversial. How do you feel, in the circumstances, about withdrawing this request, getting on with the editing you mention above ("a task that should involve several thousand edits"), and then coming back when there is clear and uncontroversial evidence that you have re-engaged? SilkTork (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if I had made these edits a month ago, we wouldn't be having the discussion either. What do you think would be "evidence"? Admin should be "no big deal" and I don't think anyone could plausibly say there's any chance I'm going to abuse the tools. Gimmetrow 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not about "abusing" the tools, it's about "misusing" them. Your recent admin action is a case in point. From a discussion you took part in under your Gimmetoo account back in 2013, you said "There are behaviours that should result in indef blocks, such as ... vandalism-only accounts.", and yet you gave Milleniumchaser124 a 3 hour block. The edit you link to as an example has since been deleted by User:Tamzin, who did do the indef block, did leave an appropriate block message on the user's talkpage, and did go around undoing the damage the vandal had done. If Tamzin had not noticed and done the right thing, then that vandal would have been free after three hours to continue vandalising Wikipedia. Now, back in the day you would have indeffed, and done the clean up. But today, you're out of practise, and so you slip up. And that's why I feel it is important that you get back into action and get yourself fit before resuming admin duties. Admins who are a bit out of practise have made mistakes, which is why we have these new desysop procedures. SilkTork (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that you've mentioned this twice, but have not asked me why I did what I did. Is "If a user believes that an administrator has not used their administrative tools as per the established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then they should first discuss their concerns and issues with the respective administrator" no longer policy? Gimmetrow 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gimmetrow: I'd like to ask, then. Because I was confused at the time and am genuinely curious. Why did you block that account for 3 hours? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) I'd like to ask as well. (The account claimed to be an LTA case in the edit summary of its second edit, and each of its next 30 edits were vandalism and/or slurs that ended up revision deleted.) Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw some clear vandalism that needed to be stopped. The short block was to allow time to look at other edits. The suggestion that this user would have been free to vandalize in 3hrs is nonsense. I got several ecs trying to post to that user's talk page. Then the user was indeffed, and I haven't objected, have I? These are the key points. I could say more but it's probably not needed here. Gimmetrow 17:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does make some sense to me. I've definitely made quick tempblocks off of a single edit and then extended to indef once I looked at someone's contribs. I do think that the particular edit you linked in the block summary should have been enough for an indef even on its own, given that it contained one of the worst slurs in (many dialects of) English, explicitly directed at another user. But I also get that we're all fallible, all capable of missing an edit summary or such (never mind something like the detail that accounts using diacritics to bypass edit filters are almost always LTAs), and if every admin requesting resysop were judged by their worst block, we wouldn't resysop any admins. The problem in this case is there's nothing to judge you by but that block. And that presents the kind of tough question that makes me glad I'm not a bureaucrat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh also, for WP:DENY reasons I'm not going to unrevdel the edit, but I've gotten permission from its target to share its content, so that this doesn't have to be an admins-only discussion. Body added the line "Fucķing retards"; edit summary was "Undid revision 1130817509 by LilianaUwU (talk) fuck off furfàg". It's the latter in particular that makes me say this was indeffable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, am satisfied with Gimmetrow's "return to activity or intention to return to activity." We get requests relatively often from users that show up out of nowhere and request the bit back on their first or second edit. Sure, makes sense to me that those haven't demonstrated an intention to return to activity, let alone actually returned to activity. This request is from someone who has made fifty times that number of edits. Sure seems like a demonstration of intention to return to activity to me. I'll take Gimmetrow at his/her word. Yes, Gimmetrow barely beat the buzzer with an admin action, but barely beating the buzzer still counts as meeting the objective portion of the resysop criteria. That part is objective for a reason. Back to the subjective part, I'm satisfied that Gimmetrow intends to return to activity. Obviously, that doesn't mean long-term activity will necessarily happen and, if not, that's on him/her, but a hundred edits in a month, to me, is sufficient to signal an intention. No comment on Gimmetrow's ability or knowledge of policy. Seems out of scope, to me. Useight (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also satisfied with Gimmetrow's plans and support restoration of the sysop bit. With the explanation, the issue with the recent admin action isn't one that gives me significant doubts about Gimmetrow's knowledge of current practices. To be more specific, we should err on the side of trusting a formerly inactive admin's plans to return to activity. To me, it's a case of balancing two less-than-ideal options, and I find that being hostile or unduly skeptical of a reasonable plan to return to activity to the point of denying a resysop is a worse outcome than resysoping someone who might not actually be active.
I'm also going to soapbox ever so slightly, to point that out it would probably be cleaner over the long term to have either a uniformly "sticky" inactivity policy (RfA always required after removal for inactivity) or have periodic confirmations for all admins, if the goal is to have every administrator on some more uniform standard of activity (editing-wise and admin-actions-wise), particularly as that would relate to demonstrated knowledge of present community norms. Maxim (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it would be cleaner and more helpful to have proper guidance for what we are to do with long term inactive admins who have been desysopped and then apply to have the tools restored. We are placed on the knife edge of WP:GAME and WP:FAITH, and also have to decide to apply the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. If we were bots we would simply resysop Gimmetrow as they meet requirements; though as humans we are asked to be "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" without a ruler to measure either the activity or the intent other than the edits we see before us. Absent a RfC on the minimum activity requirements for a returning activity-desysopped admin, we are asked to make a judgement call. I'm not quite there with my judgement call yet. I guess, given the long period of minimal activity and the uncertainty of the admin action, that I would really like to see more, not just hear more. I think I'm just more evidence based than assertion based. Having said that, like Primefac, I "could be swayed by a persuasive argument". SilkTork (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any case where the letter and the spirit of the law conflict, the latter prevails, per our fifth pillar: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the Five Pillars is an interesting and influential essay, it is just that, an essay rather than policy. In matters that involve Crats, I don't think they can rely on the Five Pillars, just as we would expect them to avoid using WP:IAR unless it was a case that policy simply had not anticipated, and only as a last resort. I'm not sure what the right answer is in this case, but it wouldn't matter, I haven't been selected to make the call, but it is a tough call. Dennis Brown - 20:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, thank you!

I am unlikely to resume a level of activity appropriate to earn back sysop privileges any time soon. I am busy with a new career and I have cultivated other interests. I would like to take this opportunity to let the record show that I think this policy is asinine, as my account is not compromised and it is daft to expect someone to maintain a level of activity for the rest of his natural life without compensation and under continual threat of demotion. But it's pretty much par for the course with how the project and society at large have gone the last several years, so it makes sense that I would be punished for doing nothing wrong. I suspect that I will now be banned for speaking my mind. Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without commenting on any other parts of your post, no, you're not going to be blocked or banned for being critical of the admin inactivity policy and nothing you've said here warrants either of those. Acalamari 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Merovingian have a better day, I guess. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best place to discuss the current policy, and to propose any changes to it is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resysop request Jamesday

Jamesday (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)

Per policy I request my flag back. Sine these seem more controversial than may have been intended, some more details:

1. Last logged action using the sysop flag was a revert during my last batch of RC patrolling in 2020. May have been an edit to a protected page as well, haven't reviewed them. The purpose of the logging requirement being to provide verification of capability use, any logged use anywhere seems to fit the bill.

2. Six years of ill health and more than a year when any active participation here was unwise is why the one year edit threshold was passed. That led to loss of job and early retirement, removing work restrictions on participation and increasing time potentially available.

3. Bureaucrats involved in this request only: a. no problem to extend the time. b. if more medical information would be useful please use my talk page to suggest a private to involved ones only communication method.

  • With the last logged admin action in July 2008 this appears to be well over the 5 year rule. As such @Jamesday: the venue to request admin access is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you think this is incorrect, would you please comment below as to how it is. — xaosflux Talk 00:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regrettably I lost my expansion to my request to an edit conflict with yours. I'll retype it as the last logged use is well within five years. Jamesday (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Possibly compromised account? Poorly formatted, unsigned posts are not normal for an admin. — xaosflux Talk 00:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regarding comments above, no recent protected page edits detected; in general use of routine "rollback" isn't considered an administrative action for this purpose - as it isn't something that is only available to administrators. I'm sorry you had health issues and I hope you've recovered - but the reason for absence isn't germane. — xaosflux Talk 00:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following inactive administrator is being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

  1. Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last admin log action: November 2021
xaosflux Talk 00:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]