Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

After not being very active for a few years, well actually closer to a decade, it is past time to pull my Admin permissions. Please return me to the ranks of a regular user, where I started out 17 years ago. Thank you. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with thanks. Do feel free to let me know if you’d like any other permissions (rollback, etc.). –xeno^talk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having rollback since I still spot a boneheaded edit now and then. Thanks. -- StuffOfInterest (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you're all set for rolling back :) –xeno^talk 00:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Job Done
		Awarded to StuffOfInterest for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. –xenotalk 00:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I have returned after a difficult hiatus of a year and a half after my father's death and my diagnosis with epilepsy. I feel like I can now be active again.

Regards Fribbler (talk)

Fribbler (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Fribbler (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed in April this year due to inactivity. Last admin log was Jan 2021, however only 33 edits spanning the prior 60-month period. @Fribbler: do you realize this will immediately put you on track for inactivity removal under criteria 2? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural query: Am I reading correctly in that former admins can re-request the tools that are removed for falling below the 100 edits in 5 years requirement? And do they have to first achieve the activity requirement, or do bureaucrats just need to be reasonably convinced that they will? –xeno^talk 14:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting January 2023, they won't be able to re-request the tools. Since it's still 2022, the new activity requirements technically haven't come on line yet, so this request is valid (provided that the answering crat is reasonably convinced Fribbler intends to return to activity). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno and @Pppery the RfC was unsurprisingly silent on this (creating timing of edge case headaches has become routine in these policy updates, leading to revisits such as this), so it seems that Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship is all that guides this. The policy was not modified to create a new disqualifying condition in the last RfC. Someone putting themselves in a continuous short-term loop of inactivity removal should raise the reasonably convinced argument. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet, but surely it's implied, as the alternative would be a crat flipping the bit then immediately removing again? NOTBURO and all that. I suppose it could be argued that the individual may be gifted a grace period until the end of the calendar month, but that's mostly an artifact of bot convenience. I'd likewise imagine (IANAB) that in (nearly?) every such case that a request would implicitly fail the "reasonably convinced" test. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer actually it appears it would trigger the required warning cycle to start again. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Which for this item is noted specifically as Three months before the request for desysopping and again one month before the desysopping goes into effect. I actually think that's a pretty self-resolving conclusion, without needing any new policy or discussions: if crats aren't convinced, it doesn't need to be returned, but if they are and do, the individual has more than three months, after which either activity has returned or the bit is removed again and surely crats wouldn't be convinced a second time. I retract my above completely! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on Xaosflux's comments, Fribbler's last 100 edits go back ten years. I'm sympathetic to people taking lengthy sabbaticals because of family issues, particularly over the past few years where Covid has disrupted families enormously. But, while it's possible for Fribbler to get 67 edits in the next three and a half weeks and avoid being immediately desysopped again, I'm not convinced they'll be able to do it in a manner that won't arouse suspicion - certainly, any straight return to administrative areas they haven't substantially touched in well over a decade is almost guaranteed to invite strong criticism. So I would advise Fribbler to forget about this and do some regular editing first instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  On hold  Bureaucrat note: I am not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, with only 1 edit in the last year, and ~33 edits in the last 5 years. Fribbler, I do welcome you back and look forward to you returning to editing first. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline to resysop. Fribbler has had barely any engagement in Wikipedia for more than ten years, and has given no indication of returning to activity now. Fribbler, much has changed on Wikipedia since you were last active, and some low activity admins have made mistakes which have caused concern; as such the community would prefer long term low activity users to fully engage with the project for a decent length of time to show understanding of current policies and expectations, before requesting the tools back. In your case, with the new rules, this would likely put you in the position of having to go through a RfA in order to get the tools back. I welcome you back as a participant in the project; there is much to do here, and all help is welcome. There is much good you can do without the tools. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think policy requires a fresh RfA per se, though I do think bureaucrats can reasonably decline the request absent either a return to the community's present activity expectation (ideally) or a very convincing commitment to do so before a subsequent inactivity trigger. Accordingly, I recognize - and second - the holding of the request. In the interim, I would be willing to apply other permissions (such as rollback) to your account, Fribbler as you work towards the relative activity levels now required of administrators. –xeno^talk 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of the situation was that Xaosflux had put the request on hold to allow "sufficient discussion" among us Crats to see if there was consensus that Fribbler had returned to activity or intended to. And that if Fribbler was not granted the tools by the end of this month, then they would need to gain them back via RfA. Your comment, though, has alerted me to another possibility - that this request is being put on hold until the end of the month, to see if Fribbler will engage with the project sufficiently to encourage enough trust to grant them the tools. That is still possible. If Fribbler does sufficiently engage, I will support restoration of the tool kit, because that would be within the existing rules. Though, following the spirit of the RfC I would be looking for more than a few token edits - I would still be looking for full engagement with the project for a decent length of time given the lengthy disconnect. I'm easy with whatever we go with: discussion and close now (with the option to reopen before 2023) or hold until 2023. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SilkTork I'm missing a policy reason that would preclude Fribbler from returning to editing, then requesting reinstatement here after January? The new 100edit/60month rule that starts in January certainly creates a new removal criteria in addition to the 0actions/1year one; however it did not create new criteria in the reinstatement prohibitions. My hold above is indeed to allow the sufficient discussion as to this specific request, in the event other crat's are "reasonably convinced" for immediate return. Should we not be, I expect to convert that to a "not done". — xaosflux ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, my original assumption was that missing the 5 year/100 edits requirement would trigger one-way removal (similar to the lengthy inactivity triggers) while on inspection this does not seem to be an outcome of the RfC. (See my procedural query above) –xeno^talk 14:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, I see. I have now digested the above discussions - I hadn't realised that there would be a recount of three months; my reading was that if someone did not meet the requirement they did not meet the requirement, and that any warnings had already been given, so needn't be given again. So, we can turn down this request, but at any time in the next 24 months Fribbler can request the tools back again, and if they convince us they are or will become active, they can become an admin again for at least three months, even if they don't edit again after the resysop. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SilkTork that's my reading. I think the 100/60 rule does provide some guidance of community expectations in this matter, and am using that to help determine how "convinced" I am. While certainly not a bright line rule, I think in general I'll lean on asking those wanting to be restored to reach a re-engagement level that won't immediately require starting a count-down clock on them upon restoration. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts here are that at present we should not return the sysop bit to an individual who is not currently meeting the "100 edits in 5 years" minimum. That said, our levels for remove and return are not the same, for good reason. I would expect removals for inactivity to be a normal process and as long as the individual no longer meets our "inactivity threshold" and does not meet our "lengthy inactivity" threshold then we should be able to resysop.

In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically concur. Fribbler asked for the tools back prior to the 2023 cutoff and so long as at least one 'crat feels the return is genuine and Fribbler will re-engage with Wikipedia as it exists now then the bit can be flipped. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a crat, but I don't think that's what Worm said. I also think it's a misreading of the RfC. In the RfC I think the community said "this is the level we expect" 100 over past 5 years and also said "it's reasonable to give admins some time to meet this level". Saying that because the second part is true (phase in) that that the first part (expectation of activity) isn't a community consensus feels out of line with the RfC results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTT said "In other words, if Fribbler were to return to activity, to above the 100/5 line, and sufficiently so that A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor (i.e. not gaming the system), then yes, they can be resysop-d at this board." I agree with the consequent given the antecedant. I am not sure the antecedent is justified yet, though, but that is a different question. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A year-and-a-half hiatus? Not only do the last 100 edits go back 10 years, the last 200 edits go back 12 years to...huh, August 2009, just after they RfA'd. This person literally stopped editing once they passed RfA. This is a prime example of the type of situation that pisses off non-admins. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their first edit coming back in, minutes before they came back here to ask for the tools: adding an inline external link to a twitter account with the edit summary, "I think an external link is appropriate in this case." Um. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm not overly convinced that this editor has made much of an effort to being active before starting this thread - which to me is a bit of a red flag. We are talking about 100 edits over the previous 10 years. If the user could show that they are active, then going back to the 2009 RfA consensus would make sense, but without even that, I feel like we would be both promoting a user that is going to be straight into the possible desysop list, but also one that hasn't interacted with the community much (if at all) since that time. I'd feel more comfortable if they met the activity threshold first before being resysoped. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; regardless of which set of desysop rules we refer to (2022 or 2023 rules), restoration can be put on hold or declined if there is no willing bureaucrat to grant it. An average of 5 edits per year for the last 10 years does not make me confident that Fribbler has returned to the type of activity the community wants to see in an admin. As stated above, even if we were to grant, Fribbler would immediately trigger the lack-of-edits clause in January (assuming they maintain their current editing numbers).

In other words, I am firmly in the "decline" camp for now, but have no prejudice against Fribbler re-applying in a month or two to demonstrate that they are planning on meeting the new activity requirements (even if they are not 100% meeting them at the time of reapplication). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done @
  WP:RFA. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

User:JarBot is operated by a user who is now globally banned. The account itself is globally blocked, but the enwiki page hasn't been updated, nor has the enwiki bot flag been removed. Recommending deflagging to avoid any confusion; the bot shouldn't be able to run, but people looking for a bot operator might go there. Risker (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done as the operator can not control it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duly added to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots. Graham87 08:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]