Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

• Killiondude (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)}

Under

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Killiondude

Per this motion, could I get a desysop please? --

Amanda (aka DQ) 20:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 21:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @DeltaQuad: thank you for the notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for intervention, but I think a notification at the user talk page is required. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: agree, as this was an ArbCom ruling I'm expecting that they will do this (as they will need to approve restoration, WMF T&S will unlock when they verify the right person is in control, but it is up to arbcom to determine if Wikipedia:Administrators#Security has been satisfied here for restoration.), @DeltaQuad: perhaps? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account unlocked by Ajraddatz -

💖 22:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Notified Killiondude of this discussion and refereed them to ArbCom to discuss access restoration. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And ArbCom has motioned to return the tools

Amanda (aka DQ) 22:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

And my apologies for not checking here after seeing them unblock themselves and reblocking. Got a little worried there. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Access restored per Arbcom request at Special:PermaLink/870454925#Return_of_tools. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious why was this restored without waiting for 24 hours as usual.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pharaoh of the Wizards: the standard 24-hour hold specified in the administrator policy is only applicable to the condition in that policy. This restoration was per motion of the arbitration committee (per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_I_procedures) and did not require a delay. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done due to lack of admin actions for five years prior to desysopping in 2014. Any further discussion can be taken elsewhere. Thanks! ···

Join WP Japan! 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hamster Sandwich (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 would like to have "the hammer" back, please. Sincerely; Hamster Sandwich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster Sandwich (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Per Special:Log/Hamster_Sandwich, the last admin action seems to have been in 2009, which falls outside of the time frame for return of tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please direct me to the appropriate page where the time frames have been determined. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be
      WP:ADMIN#Lengthy inactivity (last line). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Join WP Japan! 19:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm inclined to decline this, referring requester to
  WP:ADMIN is awkwardly phrased, however the actual RfC closure has more clarity: admins who have not used the admin tools for a prolonged period (5 years is mentioned) will usually be required to reapply. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yeah, its what you get when you have a policy written by a few people. Anyway, even by the strict wording of the policy, this wouldn't qualify: desysop was in December 2014, last logged action was November 2009. That's 5 years. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (
  Join WP Japan! 19:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • Thank you for providing clarity. I'll reapply through the normal channels. Thanks again for the help! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and with next to no edits in 4 years is unlikely to endear you to the community. You will fail an RFA. Leaky Caldron 19:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • • For the sake of clarity, I was a pretty steady editor, just not always logged in under my User Account. I have been-more or less- "technologically" challenged for the past few years. New desk top is much easier to use than a smart-phone, and as I am now "able" to do more and better cleanup work, I am willing to do so. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm. Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and explaining that the reason you have next to no edits in 4 years is because you've been sockpuppeting is definitely unlikely to endear you to the community. ‑ 
  Iridescent 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unless the definition has changed and I've not noticed, I'm sure "sockpuppeteering" is abusive use of multiple accounts or IPs. If Hamster Sandwich has been using alternate accounts and IPs to vandalize or otherwise disrupt then yes, it would be sockpuppeteering but there's no evidence they've done that and I doubt they would openly admit to editing anonymously if they had. While I see it as pointless to edit as an IP if you already have an account, calling it sockpuppetry seems extreme. Acalamari 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamster Sandwich: Stick around for a few months, make helpful edits (while logged-in) to assure folks that you're up to speed with all of the changes to Wikipedia policy and practice that have occurred since you last adminned, and an RFA will go much better than doing one now without a recent track record. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This is a perfect example of why re-adminning without an RFA for long inactive sysops is a bad idea: Appearently I have to stand for election again, and I hope I have your vote. I don't even know if people can still solicit help from their WP "friends", but... there it is. I am not blaming Hamster Sandwich at all but it shows the larger problem of giving the bit back/letting legacy admins keep it with their once a year edit but no real participation in a decade. I've been seeing stuff like this pop up a lot lately where someone who rfa'd in 2005 suddenly comes back and hasn't edited since 2007 aside from the required 1/year and has absolutely no understanding of current community consensus, culture or policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm going to mark this declined and encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the underlying policy issues to do so separate from this specific request. As always, please follow the

• • • • I must say, the incivility level has really ratcheted up since I was active. To characterize a valid question in this forum as "Swinging by" is demeaning to the project. I would ask you to reign in your impulse to insult and diminish other editors. Furthermore... "Sockpuppet"? "Facepalm"? What was the other comment... oh yes.... the whole "endearment" aspect that has been expressed by two editors here (Or are they really two people? They used the same word! Better check to make sure it's not the same IP address...) . I was not aware that people had to endear themselves. I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount. Am I wrong? ** "Absolutely no understanding" is a pretty sweeping indictment. And suddenly were talking about a decade. I see the revocation of my admin privileges as from 2014. Please try to reign in your impulses towards exaggeration. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount." Quite correct. So why not just get on with it instead of dishing out accusations? Have you heard of
  WP:AGF? Leaky Caldron 20:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have refactored this section as it has become unclear due to a series of tweaks to the inactivity policy. My intent was to express the same policy more clearly.

The text of the 5 year "no admin actions" rule was previously ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to mean that the five years had to occur prior to de-adminship for inactivity. I don't think that was ever the intent, and I've made that clear in the refactoring. There has also been some ambiguity as to whether the two "lengthy inactivity" provisions apply to voluntary resignations as well as to de-adminship for inactivity. I have codified what I understand to be the current practice. Please take a look, and make any corrections you see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UninvitedCompany: Looking at the RfC, I think that change may not reflect the original intent. The RfC proposal was: "I would therefore propose that any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back, and would need to pass a new RFA to regain the tools". This requires: (a) an admin does not use tools for five years, and (b) is subsequently desysopped. That is, the five years of no logged actions have to happen before the desysopping. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was referring to as the "awkward" part, as it didn't quite match the closing statement - perhaps this should be followed up at

WT:ADMIN? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Glad something positive happened... Initially my reading was "Admins who have been removed due to inactivity can re-apply at Bureaucrats Noticeboard. I was not aware of any further codicil until the comments started coming. Some helpful, others not-so-much... Keep up the good work! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closing statement may have given rise to the awkwardness but I think the original proposal by

Beeblebrox is clear per Kevin above. I would support the current wording by UninvitedCompany but I think that need to be proposed and gain consensus first. -- KTC (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a goofy RFC because while there was a clear consensus to do something, it was far less clear exactly what that something was. The original proposal and the closing statement don't match, and there are some conflicting alternative proposals in the comments. Making matters worse there were fewer participats in the discussion, despite this being a policy that affects many people, than there are for a typical RFA that affects one. Finally, I am actually far more concerned that we have a clear policy than I am about the mechanics. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming more inclined to ask for arbitration due to the inconsistencies present at the time of my request. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:RESYSOP and the 'crat's judgement. So, if you ask there, that's what I'll say there too. As a 'crat, however, I'll point out that as much as there's some grey area over an unclear close at an RfC - the RfC was clear that admins should not be automatically returned the tools after a period of lengthy activity. However, even if we were looking at the RESYSOP policy from a year ago [1] before the RfC, it still had provisions for lengthy inactivity. This isn't a new policy, and while it needs to be agreed what the exact numbers should be, your lack of admin activity for such a long period clearly makes you ineligible per the RfC outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 23:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) 1) What exactly would you be asking ArbCom to arbitrate on? 2) Whichever wording the crats goes with, you would not qualify for a re-sysop by simple BN request as you both i) haven't had a logged admin action in the last 5 years and ii) didn't have a logged admin action for 5 years and subsequently desysopped for inactivity. -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that the prospect of reapplying is much too daunting. Although I will never do anything to diminish this project, I will henceforth do nothing to enhance it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note it was opened on 31 December 2017 and closed only on 3 March 2018 and advertised on

WP:CENT and consensus was clear. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]