Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 50#Desysop request (Graham87)

I wish to resign from Wikipedia adminship. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:I can't recall if there is a cooling off period for these - I don't think so. But FWIW, I'd suggest Mikeblas withdraw this and wait a few days to make sure this is what he wants to do, and to make sure he understands the implications of resigning now. Nowhere in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1249180670#User:Mikeblas_replacing_incomplete_citations_with_citation_needed_tags the ANI thread] was desysopping discussed, and the issue doesn't involve the use of admin tools. But there is still a risk that this would be considered resigning under a cloud, and resysopping in the future might not be considered automatic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::Not "there is a risk ... this would be", but "this will be with absolute certainty". Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Absolute certainty based on what? Unless I missed something in the admittedly sprawling AN thread, no sanctions appear to have ever been suggested against Mikeblas and certainly not desysopping, formal warnings or anything of the like. Wikipedia:Administrators is pretty straightforward about this: {{tq|Former administrators may re-request the admin tools subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. The request is granted unless one of these situations applies}} (snip...) {{tq|The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud". If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed. }} Can you show me where the appropriateness of Mikeblas status of an administrator is currently being brought into question? A consensus of administrators saying "don't do that in the future" does not constitute "a cloud" under the current definition. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::::In my case, the appropriateness of me being administrator was not brought into question either, but when I asked for the restoration of status, a bunch of users suddenly remembered that they wanted to open an Arbcom case against me but never said it because I resigned the tools. That was good enough for several crats to think I resigned under a cloud. The Murphy's law pretty much guarantees this to happen. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'm not familiar with that background, but that doesn't sound like an appropriate example of "under a cloud" either. In any event, two wrongs don't make a right; while we can't predict the future, if such an "under a cloud" discussion were to arise, I should hope my objections here are noted by the 'crats. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Whether resignation occurred under a cloud is only determined at the time of a request for readminship is made. Any links and comments left at the time of the request for removal of the tools are solely for the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request, which will form the basis of the crats' decision at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I don't see anything under the restoration of admin tools section of WP:ADMIN that states that it's "only determined at the time of a request for readminship". Is there some subsequent policy discussion or other consensus where that was decided? {{tq|If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal}} seems quite unambiguous that it is determined at the time of resignation or removal, not at the time of requesting readminship. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Eh? That whole section is about what happens when readminship is requested, and cloudiness and similar terms are not mentioned elsewhere, determination at any other time is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not sure what you're not seeing about this. WP:ADMIN states that {{tq|The request is granted unless one of these situations applies:}} -- meaning that requests are automatically granted *unless* an exception applies. The exception in question here states: {{tq|The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud".}} It then defines that further: {{tq|If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.}}. At the time of his request for desysopping, e.g. right now, there are no serious questions about the appropriateness of his status as an administrator. So per the plain written word of our policies, there is no "cloud" that he's under -- a hypothetical request in the future should be automatically granted. So I'm asking, what is the policy basis for the claim that somehow this cloud status is decided at the time of requesting re-adminship? That's not supported by the WP:ADMIN policy. I see it mentioned in the essay WP:CLOUD where it appears to have been added by Dweller unilaterally amidst a broader discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_22#h-Restoration_of_adminship_/_"under_a_cloud"-2020-11-28T18:26:00.000Z here] for which I do not see a consensus-based formal closure. So unless I'm missing something, there appears to be no policy basis for suggesting that Mikeblas will have to request re-adminship. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Regarding when the circumstances of a resignation are evaluated: it's basically just the operating procedure. Requests to restore administrative privileges are made to the bureaucrats, so they're going to determine when a request is made if the criteria are met. Now if the community decided to spend time to reach a broad consensus that the resignation was made to avoid scrutiny of their actions, I don't think the bureaucrats would ignore it. But many editors feel that their time is better spent waiting until a request is made before making a case for this motivation, rather than spending time speculatively. (As seen in the discussion to which you linked, there are editors who think otherwise.)

::::::::::Regarding this specific case: personally, I don't see how scrutiny is evaded by resigning as an admin. The issues in question are unrelated to the admin role, and discussion about them can continue as the participants desire. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::I should ping {{ping|Mikeblas}} to make sure he sees this reply before it is actioned. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::{{ec}} I was about to post something similar. I would certainly expect discussion about the ANI thread (and related thread on their user talk page) to occur should you request a resysopping and that will likely at least delay restoration while discussion plays out. Whether it will be determined a blocker is not something we can (or even should be attempting to) predict at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::While I'm sure we all want Mike to consider his actions here today and to consider whether there was a real reason for them to do this, they've been an admin since ....(checks notes) two months before this old timer made their first edit, so I should think we should already expect them to have deep knowledge of policies related to adminship. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Ironically, this is one of those situations (not as rare as they might be, unfortunately) where even if we de-tool an admin, we are not actually losing an admin. As noted above, Mikeblas has been one for 17 years; in that time they've made [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/Mikeblas#general-stats ~150 logged admin actions]. So, with such a lack of hands-on experience, a concomitant lack of policy knowledge is not so unexpected. Still, on a lighter note, their content creation is second to none, which is more than can be said for many. SerialNumber54129 22:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::::I think you meant ~150 logged admin actions? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Oops, thanks. Yes indeed. Changed. SerialNumber54129 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

::When this discussion comes to a conclusion, please let me know -- at that time I'll have full information to make my decision. Meanwhile, I hope it's clear that I'm not resigning to try to evade any judgement, scrutiny, or responsibility. (Or, maybe waiting for the ANI discussion to close will make that clearest. But I don't know how it gets closed.) Also: thanks for considering a cooling-down period. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

:::While it looks like both this discussion and ANI thread have come to natural ends the one on your talk page seems to still be ongoing. I'd recommend waiting until all three have concluded before making a final decision though so it's unambiguous that if you do choose to resign you aren't trying to evade scrutiny and, should there come a point where you rerequest the tools it's clear to those commenting at the time how they played out. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:::{{yo|mikeblas}} (Wrote this at the same time as the above comment by Thrydululf) As the ANI discussion about your edits did not really involve your status as an admin, nobody was proposing any sort of formal sanction, and the discussion has basically fizzled out, I don't think it is reasonable to say this was resignation under a cloud as there was no chance you were about to be removed involuntarily. The ball is still entirely in your court as of right now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

::::It seems like {{u|Just Step Sideways}} and {{u|Thryduulf}} are offering conflicting interpretations of policy on this matter -- unless I'm misunderstanding them. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Part of the issue there is that there is no exact procedure for determining such a thing. I saw Thryduulf's comment about letting the discusison on your talk page run it's course but I don't personally think you need to do that. You did not avoid scrutiny, you clearly chose to go ahead and engage and respond to criticism, even if some of those criticizing you were not satisfied with your replies. And this wasn't about your admin status and did not involve use of admin tools. There doesn't have to be a stated reason for an admin resignation, you can hand in your tools for any reason you like and you are not required to disclose what that reason is. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::As JSS says, there isn't a policy on when or why you can request deadminship. There is policy that 'crats can't automatically readmin someone if they resigned to avoid sanctions or escape scrutiny of their actions, but no formal definition of what counts as doing either of those things - obviously there are some situations where it is abundantly clear either way, e.g. if there is an arbcom case active or there are no discussions about your actions anywhere, but vast swathes of grey between.

:::::I suggested waiting, not because you need to wait (again JSS is exactly right about that) just that if there are no discussions about your actions at the time of requesting a deadminship, it is completely unambiguous that you are not resigning to avoid scrutiny of actions. It is not impossible that someone will think the discussion on your talk page is relevant to your adminship (c.f. WP:SUPERMARIO), but how likely this is is difficult to say - if your request readminship in 3 months time then it's going to be very extremely improbable, if the request is in four and half years then who knows.

:::::Ultimately though the decision on if and or when to resign adminship is yours alone. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Piping up, as I was named, {{u|Isaacl}} is right. That's just what we do. No returning administrator should be able to say that their resignation was not 'under a cloud' because nobody said it was back then. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::The policy at WP:ADMIN is quite unambiguous that this determination is made "at the time of resignation or removal". If nobody spoke up back then, by definition it wasn't under a cloud. The purpose is to prevent people from resigning to avoid scrutiny of their actions -- not to retroactively exclude administrators if nobody felt their actions merited scrutiny in the first place. If "that's just what we do", that indicates we have a problem with out-of-control 'crats that needs to be urgently addressed.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::That passage isn't saying that the determination is made at the time of resignation or removal. It's saying that if there were questions about the admin's status at that time, then administrative privileges cannot be restored on request. isaacl (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Those questions *are* the determination. It's the same thing. Administrative privileges are an automatic "must restore" *unless* one of the exemptions apply. The exemption here is that, "at the time of resignation or removal", there were "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator." I understand that in this case we all seem to agree those questions don't exist. I'm speaking to statements like {{tq|Whether resignation occurred under a cloud is only determined at the time of a request for readminship is made. Any links and comments left at the time of the request for removal of the tools are solely for the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request, which will form the basis of the crats' decision at that time.}} which imply that this is somehow a discretionary decision for 'crats to make, or that we allow subsequent discussion at the time of the *restoration* request based on the concern that somehow "nobody spoke up" about a concern they may or may not have had at the time of desysopping. That's the part I'm taking issue with. In the event that "nobody spoke up" at the time of desysopping, then there were by definition no serious questions raised about the appropriateness of their status as an administrator. Thus the exemption does not and cannot apply. And even if there had been some questions about their fitness, and the exemption did apply, the policy states that the matter goes to WP:RFA. Either way, it is a completely brightline scenario without any room for "the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request" or for 'crat discretion on the decision. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Since my concerns here are purely generalized and have nothing to do with Mikeblas specifically, so as not to prolong anything or confuse anyone, I'm going to bow out of this for now and end my line of commentary here in the interest of letting this section die out so he can desysop in peace. I can raise my generalized concerns with the policy language on the policy page.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::We're discussing slightly different things, if I understand correctly. Yes, any questions that were present at the time of resignation are what need to be considered. The consideration can take place later, though, to avoid spending time speculatively at the time of resignation. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tpq|any questions that were present at the time of resignation are what need to be considered. The consideration can take place later, though}} is exactly right. The determination is made at the time of the readminship, the determination is made based on a consideration of the circumstances at the time of resignation and anything subsequent that is relevant (e.g. activity levels, any behaviour post resignation that could/would have led to led to an admin being desysopped, perhaps edit warring to resinstate copyvio material).

:::::::::::When it comes to the determination the crats have to decide whether readminship should be automatic or only after an RFA. There are three possible scenarios regarding cloudiness:

:::::::::::*It is clear adminship was resigned to avoid scrutiny: The crats must not resysop without a new RFA

:::::::::::*It is clear there was no avoidance of scrutiny and they were in good standing: The crats may resysop after 24 hours (assuming activity requirements are met) but they have discretion not to do so (or to delay doing so) on the basis of community discussion at the time of the resysop request.

:::::::::::*It is unclear whether there was or wasn't a cloud: Crats must use their judgement to determine whether to resysop or not based on the situation at the time and comments in any discussion at the time of the resysop request.

:::::::::::Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:Marking this as {{not done}} for now; mikeblas has not affirmed their desire to have their rights removed. Feel free to re-request if that is not the case. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Daniel}}

Please remove my administrator tools for now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm super bummed to see this @Daniel, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for everything. You've been an amazing administrator who was always someone to look to as an excellent example of how to be, and I really do hope you pick the tools back up some day. If you don't, that's fine, I understand, but you've had an awesome impact on the site in a positive way. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::{{done}}, let us know if you need any advanced perms. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:Other admins are going to have to step up their game. Daniel, thanks for the hard work and I hope you're sticking around as a mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the kind words Floq and Josh. I will still be active for sure, albeit at a lower level (I have 7 weeks away from home in the next 13 and it's summer here, so the 6 weeks I am here I'll probably be at the beach!) - I might even still close some AfD's once in a while :) I also look forward to picking up the tools at some point — likely next year — although I'll be keeping an eye on certain developments that are important to me when making that decision. Cheers all, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:::just adding my voice to the chorus here. Admins with a clear sense of right and wrong are a valued commodity. Enjoy the break. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks, Daniel. We appreciate your dedication to the project. Stepping back is almost always a GOOD thing. Sing out if you need more sunscreen; we're well networked for international response. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. {{admin|Yamamoto Ichiro}}
2. : Last logged admin action: October 2023
3. {{admin|JaGa}}
4. : Last logged admin action: February 2016
5. {{admin|Aervanath}}
6. : Last logged admin action: March 2023

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. {{admin|Christopher Sundita}}
2. : Last logged admin action: December 2022
3. {{admin|Kbh3rd}}
4. : Last logged admin action: April 2015
5. {{admin|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}}
6. : Last logged admin action: December 2021

:Thank you all for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::User:Xaosflux why does JaGa's eight years of no admin actions matter? He's not edited for over a year, so indeed he qualifies for desysopping; I just don't understand why you mention the admin actions. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Not Xaosflux, but I assume it's to note whether these admins would qualify for resysopping if they were to return to activity. Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools states not to resysop if it has been more than five years since the last logged action, so in JaGa's case he would need to go through another RFA. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Should a resysop request come in, this is a handy note to help in the checks for restoration - if it has been a long time some eligibilities may have passed or additional discussion may be warranted. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Wikipedia:Administrator recall process that was developed as part of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has given the bureaucrats a new task. Once a recall petition has gained enough support to pass, the administrator in question must make a re-request for adminship or stand in an administrator election within 30 days. The bureaucrats are responsible to ensure that this is done in a reasonable time frame. If neither take place, then bureaucrats can remove administrative privileges at their discretion. Thus there is flexibility for judgement regarding what time frame is reasonable. Note the phase 2 consensus was reconciled in discussion at {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall|Initiating RRFAs}} (comment thread permalink) to work out this task. Your support of this process will be greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:There is also an ongoing discussion about whether there is any flexibility with the 30 days here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#Outstanding questions. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

At {{slink|WP:AN|Is WP:RECALL a policy?}} (see most recent posts at the bottom), some editors have asked whether bureaucrats are actually authorized to desysop based on this process. Is it possible to get an "official" answer from the 'crats? Levivich (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Probably, but I'd like to see a little bit more added regarding such at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall, where referencing the rfc would be nice. Also in the newer addition {{tq|If an administrator abuses administrative rights, the community can require a re-request for adminship (RRfA)}} section -- did the empowering RFC require an actual showing of "abuse" of "administrative rights" - or could a recall be initiated for any reason? I think it is likely the later (such that showing consensus of "abuse" is not a necessary element.) I think the updates to the admin policy should specifically state that this type of involuntary removal may be performed by bureaucrats. Arguments of if the policy change is supported or not should continue in the appropriate venues as needed (i.e. not this page). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Doesn't the original RFC proposal 16C specifically note that it will be the bureaucrats removing the admin flag during this process? The alternatives, I suppose, would be that a steward remove it, which seems atypical, or nobody removes it, which means the recall process has no teeth. I would doubt that the RFC participants had either of those outcomes in mind, and so it would fall to the bureaucrats to perform that actual bit removal. Useight (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Useight, I don't think "who" should do the bit-flipping is being debated, if it is appropriate to be done, it should be done by us. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Indeed. I don't think there's any question of if it would be us who would handle any removal of the bit. We would handle any removal of adminship if suitable.

:::I think the issue is the details of when a removal of admin privileges should be inforced. I agree that the process shouldn't be limited to "abuse of administrative rights", there's many reasons why one might get consensus for someone to have their rights removed.

:::Most of our job is to evaluate consensus, so we should handle a recall process now it is policy. I would for one, want the policy to specifically state what the correct format should be - should it be a case of an uninvolved user coming to BN and asking for the bit to be removed? Should crats be checking and closing the proposals themselves (if that's already been discussed, I missed it, sorry). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::::The actual "recall election" is effected either by a reconfirmation RfA, which presumably must be closed by a crat, or through admin elections, if those stay, where it will presumably be handled along with the rest of the election results. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::What I'd like to see is the 2 new involuntary removal conditions be clearly listed in the admin policy: (a) being unsuccessful in a recall election; (b) refusing to start a recall election. Linking to the rfc that established the consensus for that policy update would be useful as well assuming debate about that rfc closure and its affect is over. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you, xaos, Usesight, and Lee for the feedback. I've made edits to WP:ADMIN to clear up the "abuse" issue, link to the RFCs, and explicitly specify the 2 removal criteria (failure to start, failure to pass). Hope that helps. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks, Levivich. I made a slight grammatical change to your addition (changing "does not timely start" to "does not promptly start"), but I would like it even better if it specified just how long the user had. Either way, I liked that the wording allowed for any reason of not starting the RRFA, not just refusing to do so - as an admin who ignored the whole thing would be failing to start one but not refusing to start one, per se. Useight (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks! I just changed it again to specify "30 days" (per the RFCs). Levivich (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm so glad there's a discussion of recall here, the other twenty discusions spread scross half of project space really were not enough. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:Well, the one 'crat who has weighed in here thus far is opposed to mass-pinging, so I'm not sure what else one would do to get 'crat input. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:I don't mind the question of "hey crat's are you willing to do this, if not what do you need"? being here - but yes, please don't fork the rest of the discussion here. My colleagues may certainly have their own takes on the current status as 'crats, or as community members. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Dragons_flight}}

I haven't really been active for a long time now, and will hit the admin inactivity threshold soon anyway, so I might as well make the desysop request myself. It's been fun, but for now other interests and priorities have gotten the better of me. Not sure if I'll ever really return to active editing or not. Maybe some day if life slows down, but I'm still proud of what I've contributed to Wikipedia over the years, and glad to see the project continue to flourish. Good luck to everyone else. Dragons flight (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Please let us know if you need any of the advanced perms you held before adminship. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::If I ever become active again, rollback and template editor would probably be useful. At the moment though, I'm not doing much of anything, so I'm also happy to sort that out at a later date. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for your work over the years. I wish we had an "admin reserve" where trusted accounts could be pulled out of mothballs and reactivated if needed. I guess this is a tiny bit like that. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::Getting off-topic here, but the reason for the admin activity requirements is because there is a large community opposition to admins coming out of the mothballs who are unfamiliar with contemporary policy and community norms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in general the community is probably better off finding more ways to place trust in current active users than expecting inactive users to jump back in. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! The results of the 2024 admin elections have been finalized, scrutinized, and posted here. The following candidates surpassed the threshold and should be promoted to admin status:

• {{u|Queen of Hearts}}
• {{u|SilverLocust}}
• {{u|ThadeusOfNazereth}}
• {{u|Rsjaffe}}
• {{u|Dr vulpes}}
• {{u|Ahecht}}
• {{u|SD0001}}
• {{u|DoubleGrazing}}
• {{u|Sohom Datta}}
• {{u|Peaceray}}
• {{u|FOARP}}

A bureaucrat can now enact the promotions - thank you very much! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{+1}}. Everything is final and ready for bureaucrats to promote. WMF Trust & Safety made the initial post with the decrypted mw:Extension:SecurePoll results, and the 3 steward scrutineers signed the results page to ratify it. Here's a link to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Results&action=history page history] if you'd like to double check yourselves. I've also double checked the names list Ganesh811 posted above and it has been correctly copied over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{done}}, but please next time use {{t|rfplinks}} so I don't have to make six clicks to get to their userrights. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you, will do! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Can you immediately de-sysop any candidate who has a massive pic of their boat race on their user page :) SerialNumber54129 01:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Well, that must be some sort of record for new admins in month for quite sometime. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Since August 2010! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

As currently stated in WP:RECALL, Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 currently meets the threshold for an RRFA (re-request for adminship) - 25 EC editors signing the petition within 30 days. As the bureaucrats are currently listed as {{tq|responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion}}, it might be good for a crat to step in and discuss how to proceed from here.

Is a formal closure of the recall petition needed? It might be beneficial anyways. Also may be helpful to have an informal discussion on how the RRFA begins. Soni (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not at all sure that a 'crat is required to close the petition, although I'm sure some would rest easier if one did. . Also their opnion is no more relevant than yours or mine. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::I listed it here less as a "Crats need to do this" and more "The policy page lists crat involvement in the next steps - How will that work now on". With a new process like this, there'll be informal "How we do this" for things not explicitly listed in the page.

::Especially given Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall/Graham87#What_happens_now? is causing some doubt on if closing itself is valid. I'd argue closure is the most logical read of this. Else we may need another discussion to fix that loophole. Soni (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::I think it is best if a crat formally notes that the threshold has been crossed and then discusses the next steps with the admin in question (in particular, when to start the RRFA if the admin does not resign under a cloud). Leaving this to the bureaucrats should help slightly reduce the drama level. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ec|2}} A formal closure definitely is not required as there is no mention of anything like that in the policy. I'm not sure what a crat closure would bring? Anyone can verify that 25 (or more) extended confirmed editors have signed within 30 days, and that's the only thing that is relevant.

:Regarding how the RRFA begins, assuming Graham87 doesn't want to resign his adminship status then it begins the same way every other RFA does: Graham will prepare his nomination statement, etc and then when he is ready he will transclude it at WP:RFA. Crat involvement is only needed when the RRFA closes or if Graham87 doesn't initiate it within 30 days. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::The policy does not prohibit a formal closure; its absence from the policy seems like an oversight (which is to be expected; Wikipedians are terrible at prescriptive policy writing). —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Indeed one is not prohibited, but I'm not sure what the benefit of one would be? Not everything needs a closure. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::So if I understand you correctly, unless Graham starts his new RFA early, there is no step that will be taken between now and 26 November when the recall petition expires? And assuming we get to that date and the 25+ signatures are in place, the policy is not at all clear on what exactly happens after that. The wording says {{xt|"the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election"}}, but without any time frame or procedure for how that might happen (indeed, if Graham were to plump for the admin-election option we'd be in complete limbo as there aren't any further elections scheduled any time soon).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{tpq|Unless Graham starts his new RFA early, there is no step that will be taken between now and 26 November when the recall petition expires?}} Yes.

:::::{{tpq|but without any time frame or procedure for how that might happen...}} No. The Re-request for adminship section says {{tpq|An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an administrator election is scheduled within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead.}} so as long as Graham initiates his re-RFA within 30 days of 26 November (plus any leeway the crats deem reasonable, which might be none) all is good from the perspective of recall.

:::::In theory, if a RRFA is both initiated and closed or withdrawn before 26 November, then Graham could be required to hold a second re-RFA, but that would be extremely bureaucratic, especially as the only way he will be an adminstrator at that point is if the RRFA is snow-closed as successful and I don't recall any RFA ever being closed that way (nothing in the policy can compel someone who has chosen to resign their adminship to stand again). Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Although I guess they could attempt to regain adminship via the lower support threshold of a RRFA than a standard RFA, but I don't think the community would support someone attempting to game the system in that way). Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Oh right, sorry, I didn't see the additional stipulations further down the page... it might be handy to clarify that in the sentence I've quoted above, since taken in isolation that appears to say that an admin election is always an option. Anyway, it looks like there's not much more to be done here. We wait until the 26 November for the recall to close, and after that we wait again until the 26 December for the RRFA to be started. Quite a long time-frame during which the admin under a cloud can retain the bit, but it appears those are the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::The petition can only result in re-RFA, so the moment Graham chooses to Re-RFA (or commits to a date for it), the petition itself can be closed (which I believe is {{ping|Newyorkbrad}}'s read too). So I think it'll be extreme bureaucracy to try to force a second RRFA after that.

::::::As it is, WP:RECALL has this provision to ward against similar cases - {{tq| The petition may not be created within twelve months of the administrator's last successful request for adminship, request for bureaucratship, or re-request for adminship, or within twelve months of the administrator being elected an administrator or elected to the Arbitration Committee.}} Soni (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::The benefits of a formal closure would be:

::::# Avoiding a pile-on - we have reached the threshold so no new signatures are required now.

::::# If people who are supporting the petition later change their mind, then it may become confusing about whether the recall petition was successful or not

::::— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::See above. From what Thryduulf has indicated, and indeed the way the policy is written, I don't think closing now is an option. If some of the signatories withdraw their name in the mean time and it dips back under 25, then I think the recall is closed as unsuccessful.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Allowing a RRFA to run the full length and see how many people sign the petition could contribute to the decision about whether to run at RfA or just give up the tools. If one closed at ~30 signatures, someone may think they have a good shot and run. If it closed at ~70, an admin might simply give up the tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:I would not have guessed that it needed an RFC-style close where the discussion is thoroughly read and summarized. I would have thought any editor could hat it with a one-sentence explanation that 25 signatures were achieved and that it's proceeding to the next step in WP:RECALL. A quick close would also have the added benefit of ending the drama for awhile, until the new RFA is launched. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:In my view, the best analysis is that the petition would ordinarily remain open for the full 30 days (primarily to allow signers to withdraw their signatures if they change their minds), but that if the admin acknowledges that the petition has succeeded and is willing for the 30-day RRfA clock to start immediately, then the admin should be allowed to waive the extra time and the petition could be closed at that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::I agree; the current wording implies that the discussion lasts for 30 days, full stop, and a re-RFA has to happen within 30 days of the discussion closing. If they file earlier, that's their choice. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I'm also making a slightly different point: if the admin says "okay, fine, I'm recalled, I'm filing my RRfA tomorrow," then can the petition then be closed today rather than tomorrow? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::The language of the page as it currently reads does not give the option/procedure to close a petition early, which is something that probably should be rectified. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I don't think there are any circumstances under which anyone could reasonably object to a crat closing the petition once the RRFA has actually started. It should definitely be clarified though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Since this process is a threshold petition and doesn't utilize consensus, it would seem to me at the moment the 25th signature is applied, the threshold is met, the petition is successful, and options pass to the object of the petition immediately. If a few extra sigs come in, that's fine but has no impact on the already met threshold. BusterD (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{crat note}} I have informed Graham of the status of the petition as the first step of {{tq|ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame}}. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:If it's not specified that the petition should be closed after 25 signatures, then it shouldn't be closed. The only reason to close would be due to the starting of an RRfA, as this would replace the petition discussion. For now there remains a benefit to having discussion open, prior to the re-request, even if the petition could be archived and discussion taken to the talk page for example. CNC (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::Agree here, no reason it "needs" to be closed, and certainly not only by a 'crat - but as it is a simple numerical-count-threshold petition keeping it open isn't necessary for anything so I think anyone should feel free to mark it closed at this point. If they want to discuss the petition itself there is its talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Based on this read, I am making a perhaps WP:Bold closure of the petition myself.

:::As a sidenote, rules as intended I don't believe anyone ever planned for it to be 30 days even if threshold was met. The phrasing just existed as a quirk of the policy word choice, not the original RFCs. Soni (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I very much believe that was the wrong action to take. As mentioned above, someone may reasonably leave a petition open to see just how many signatures it racks up to get a better idea of how many opposes they may get, and whether it's worth it to just give up the tools or not. The better choice was to either let it run its course or for the person being petitioned to give the okay for it to be closed, not for those who are not being petitioned to decide to close it just because the threshold has been reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::You know what? I'm going to boldly re-open it. Per Primefac's {{diff2|1255747644|note on Graeme87's page}}, {{tq|...at current the language does not require a firm statement until the poll has "closed"}}. To close the petition now is to start the timer earlier than a person may be ready for and is blindsiding them in a sense. I don't believe that's appropriate. We need to either work the language out in a way that makes more sense, or allow the candidate to ask for or accept the petition be closed. There's no consensus on whether a close is appropriate at this time, so let's not force it through. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I believe you're wrong.

:::::For one, I personally disagree with "racking up" signatures as an explicit strategy being open, that sounds like the kind of thing to be kept for RRFA itself (same as Oppose-recall petition votes). I personally do not believe in any tangible benefit to applying additional pressure to admins who have already accepted the outcome of the process. If they want to give up the tools, they can still choose to do so.

:::::For the factual point of view, I already expressed what the wording choice in RFCs was conveying, and why the current policy as written was just phrased slightly different. It had been intended to be "When the threshold is met" not "Run it for N days, even if it's succeeded".

:::::And finally, I read Graham87's comments here as asking for the proposal to be closed/checking if it can be. But if you want to be ultra explicit, we can ping {{reply|Graham87}} here to check.

:::::In either case, I believe the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Early_closure should be able to resolve this explicitly for the future Soni (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::@Soni: Respectfully, it's a big decision whether to run at RfA or not. It sucks whether you rack up tons of supports or whether it's going to be a difficult dredge. If people believe the process should go the full 30 days, and the candidate wants to see how opposed they may be based on the number of signatories, I believe they should be allowed to. It's fine that we both disagree, but with the ambiguity I don't think it's fair to anybody to close it without figuring things out first and force the clock to start ticking. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I've self reverted my own close, based on the comment that I had not initially seen. Sorry for the trouble folks, I just felt very strongly that someone shouldn't have the discussion closed unexpected, but it appears as though they did actually want this. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Okie dokie. Please join or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall regarding how to improve that process to remove ambiguity in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::: {{ec}} I'm with Soni here - Graham87 is not being blindsided by anything, and has made his intentions clear that he's going to RRFA within less than a month from any reasonable interpretation of the timeline. There's nothing to be gained from keeping it open. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I accept that it may have been incorrect to reopen it @Pppery, I just don't believe that someone "boldly" closing it is the correct thing to do in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::If bold is the part of this closure you have problems with, I'll happily just let my rest of reasoning speak for itself. I actually got EC-ed on the close itself by SN-54129.

:::::::And I'm not sure if you missed it, but the candidate themselves said {{tq|I'll go for the RRFA as soon as possible and was just about to scout for noms.}}. Soni (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I did @Soni, and I've already self-reverted. I see now how and why I made the mistake. I was a bit fired up at the idea of someone boldly closing the discussion and forcing someone into the process sooner than they may have been prepared for, and there's been so much discussion, that I missed the relevant comment that showed it's not quite as bold as I initially thought. I checked Graham87's talk page, I checked the talk page here, but the place I did not check was the talk page of the petition itself. This is suuuuper trout worthy on my part. Again, I apologize to all involved, but I believe I had the best of intentions in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Fathoms Below}}

Hi 'crats, I'd like to resysop. It's been a tough year, and I resigned a few months ago because of burnout that morphed into depression. I said on my talk that I didn't plan on requesting adminship for a while since I had concerns about my mental health and temperament, but since then I think I've made some progress on both fronts. I'll probably stick to AIV and UAA for now and build back into other areas like PERM later. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Desysop request is at Special:Permalink/1229769776, note the username change. Standard 24 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Last admin actions were in June 2024 (4 days before the desysop request) so well within the timeframe for restoration here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{small div|1=Works out either way here, but for the record, most recent admin activity only matters on an inactivity desysop. For a few years, WP:ADMIN incorrectly implied otherwise, but {{slink|Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_23#Clarifying_5_year_rule}} resolved this in 2022. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)}}

:::Hmm, the 2022 discussion clarified the position regarding when we start counting the 5 years from but didn't address it only applying to desysops due to inactivity. I'll start a new discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions for anyone interested. The discussion is not relevant to Fathoms Below's request. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for returning. We need you. Glad to have you back! BusterD (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Ajpolino}}

Hi all. My interest in article writing is waning for now. I think returning to copyright problems for a bit will get my head on straight again. The tools would help with that. Desysop request here, around a year ago. Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Standard 24 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Only 6 logged admin actions since February 2022:

:*2 in April 2022

:*3 in October 2022

:*1 in December 2022. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Well yes, unsurprisingly, that's why I requested desysop in the first place. Do you have a question or concern? Ajpolino (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I believe it's for checking WP:RESYSOP requirements. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Indeed, it's a simple factual note so that the decision to resysop or not resysop is made based on the relevant evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for returning this week. It's a good time to have another experienced sysop around. BusterD (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Marine 69-71}}

In accordance with this motion please desysop Marine 69-71. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{Done}}. 28bytes (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Sohom Datta}}

Hi folks, I'd like to request access to interface administrator permissions to work on gadgets and the MediaWiki: namespace (as I mentioned in Q1 of my WP:AELECT statement) -- Sohom (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Wasting no time! Just a quick comment to say that I know Sohom to be a highly technically proficient editor who will be careful with this right {{p}} — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::Seconded. I'd also like to point out they're currently a global int admin already until April, 2025. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Standard 48 hour hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{+1}}. History of gadget work such as {{t|IAER}}s to Mediawiki:Gadget-popups.js. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{+1}} – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Support NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support charlotte ^👸♥📱 17:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Neither request is a second RFA, people. If there are concerns, please feel free to voice them, but otherwise crats will process IA requests without particular unexpected delay. Izno (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:These 2 IADMIN requests might be ready for closure. Commenting in case it got lost in all the other activity below. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::I set the timer but didn't hear it go off. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|SD0001}}

Hi, I am requesting intadmin rights as I've been active in raising IPERs and would now love to help out with requests from others. I have quite a few [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SD0001&namespace=8&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 edits] in MediaWiki namepace before becoming an admin {{p}}. – SD0001 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Absolutely expected. To use TNT's words on another request, I know Sohom SD0001 to be a highly technically proficient editor who will be careful with this right. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{+1}}. Extensive history of gadget work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{+1}} – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Support NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support charlotte ^👸♥📱 17:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Standard 48 hour hold is in effect. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Dank}}
• I'm going to be away for a bit longer ... erring on the side of caution, I'd like to turn in my tools for now. Please and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• :{{done}}, please let us know if you need any advanced perms. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Pppery}}

Can I have my admin and interface admin rights back? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:After 24 hours for admin. Unless you need IA right away it probably makes more sense to do them both at the same time. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:: I don't. And per policy {{tq|The interface administrator right may be granted only to existing administrators}} so it's not allowed anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I knew there was another reason not to grant early... Primefac (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:*Desysop was request was August 2024, last admin action was the day before. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Welcome back to tool use, Pppery. We appreciate you're stepping up at this time. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yay! Welcome back! – robertsky (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::Whoot! I needed that this week... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:::* Pppery *, I just saw the big A by your username on a comment you made and realized you're an admin again. Welcome back! You've been missed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is to note that the recall petition Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily had received 25 signatures so was closed by an editor as successful. Per WP:RECALL, {{tq|The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion.}}

So a crat should probably be in touch with Fastily for next steps and/or when they start an RRFA after this. Soni (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:No need. I'm aware of what my options are thanks. -Fastily 07:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::Just noting here (i.e. cross-posting) that I am not overly thrilled with the phrase "closed as successful" and have started a discussion about the matter on recall's talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't be pre-emptively closing these, and that there's not consensus to do so, unless the person the recall discussion is about has requested it. It can be valuable to see whether there are going to be a significant number of signers when deciding whether to give up the tools or run again. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

::I agree with you, and this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop#Closing a petition although there is opposition to asking the question at the RFC with @The leaky cauldron asserting that there does not need to be a formal consensus to endorse the BOLD change to the policy that stated discussions should be closed immediately upon reaching 25 signatures. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Thryduulf|Hey man im josh}} I'm 'theleekycauldron', with three 'e's and no spaces, and I didn't oppose that question. I explicitly supported rephrasing the question to emphasize the "delay after threshold reached" option. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

::::This post added to Fastily's user talk page could be an argument in favor of letting these petitions run the full 30 days instead of closing them down as soon as the reach 25 signatures or whatever the threshold ends up being. I'm not saying it would've made much difference in Fastily's case, but people do sign/post things IRL that they might come to regret and wish they could go back an undo. If someone who signs thinks the petition is to run for 30 days, maybe it should be allowed to go the distance. In a separate matter, it might be a good idea if someone monitors Fastily's user talk to try and prevent it from further becoming a magnet for drama. I'm not sure who monitors talk pages in cases like this, but what's happening now often seems to happen whenever someone retires, particularly when it's not under the best circumstances. It seems a bit late for those who signed the petition to try and soften the blow and at least one of the posts (also the same person posted below) kind of seems like an attempt at polite trolling. FWIW, two accounts posting on Fastily's user talk page yesterday had their posts were removed and they were subsequently blocked; I imagine there's probably going to be some more of these accounts showing up now that Fastily has made their retirement official. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 14:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::The time to close isn't a decision being made by us 'crats, there is a discussion about this linked above, please feel free to join the discussion there. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Note to bureaucrats that this RfC was closed with a consensus for Option 2, so the Administrator policy has been changed/clarified. The relevant passage from WP:Administrators is below with removals struck through and additions underlined.

• {{tq|Over five years since administrative tools were last used. In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request. This applies to all former administrators}}

If there are any clarifications needed let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:Ganesha811, you should also update Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::Done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for making the change and informing us. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• After WP:ADMIN was updated to state as such, I included linked notes at WP:CRAT and WP:RECALL that state that failing to pass a recall will actually result in access removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{rfplinks|Graham87}}

Please desysop me; I've withdrawn my re-RFA. I've given myself the non-admin user rights I wanted. I'll keep my importer right. Graham87 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Removing per the not pass criteria for a recall RRfA. Access may be regained in the future via WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm sure you mean well but giving yourself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=165934234 every right under the sun] before requesting desysop seems a bit tone deaf to me. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::Granted, he did provide explanations for each right in the log summary. JJP_Master (she/they) 11:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Noting, there were some self-granted lesser included permission groups recently added, and user is a member of the special importers group. Endorsing all the lesser groups in my admin capacity as the RRfA didn't bring up any issues with them. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Should any actual use issue occur with these, please feel free to bring example to my talk page, or start a thread at WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

{{cot|Off-topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}}

::::: I think account creator is technically redundant - every single permission it has is covered by event coordinator or page mover. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::@Pppery I think so and don't mind clearing it as redundant, though we might have something on a blacklist or abusefilter tagging the old group and haven't gotten through checking them yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::The permissions assigned look to be mainly content related, and I don't think anyone's had issues with G87's conduct in those areas. He's held off from giving himself rollbacker or pending changes, which relate to others' contributions, so I think there's no issue here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Yeah I think we could probably give the guy a break on a few perms. Which he could've got just by asking anyway. Tone deaf my hairy arse. SerialNumber54129 11:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::To clarify: I'm sure it wasn't malicious and the rights could have been granted as part of the desysop as is often the case. Instead of being asked for they were simply just taken, which just gives it a bad taste to me. Serial, I won't comment on your "hairy arse". -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::A man's hairy arse is his own private kingdom. I shall defend it with my life! :D SerialNumber54129 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Yeah I just thought it would have been easier that way. I was originally going to ask/give myself rollback but (a) given that issues were brought up with my use of it in the RFA at a later stage and (b) I might not have much use for it after the watchlist purge, I thought it'd be best to not assign myself that permission. Graham87 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Graham, if there's anything wiki-archeology related that you're now unable to do, ping me and I'll help.  — Hex • talk (formerly Scott) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Seconded. jp×g🗯️ 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::it sure is fun kicking someone when they're down, isn't it? who's next? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::Sounds like you're volunteering to me.. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what it sounds like to you. Therein lies the problem. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

{{od}} This seems in danger of becoming an overly testosterone-y or laddish area. If we have to contemplate {{u|Serial Number 54129}}'s hairy arse, I would like to contribute my tits. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

:I think it's safe to say I regret even acknowledging Serial's comment now. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

::That is usually a mistake, yes (FBDB) Izno (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::And my axe! jp×g🗯️ 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

{{cob}}

• {{rfplinks|Tamzin}}

I would like to {{user:tamzin/The diaeresis|re|ä|ctivate}} my adminship. Since my resignation in February and the feelings about it that I expressed in this audio essay, I've spent a lot of time thinking and looking inward. I haven't changed my mind about anything I said in that essay, but I have learned to better synthesize disparate feelings in myself, like my desire to help in administrative tasks versus my disdain for a lot of our administrative culture. This time around, I plan to focus on quality over quantity, as I've been doing for the past few months in admin-adjacent areas. As always, my gratitude to the bureaucrat team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:yay :3 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:What a surprise! :) SerialNumber54129 00:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Welcome back! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Has at least a logged admin action from Feb 2024. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Really glad to see this! Don't let anyone pressure you into working in areas that might involve wading into it. I jibed with your essay in February, and it's only come to feel more true since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:It's a pleasure to see you return. JJP_Master (she/they) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Happy to see you back! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Another administrator back again! {{tooltip|Congratulations!|OK, I should get back to actually improving the encyclopedia and not being in the backrooms like Tamzin stated...}} — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Welcome back :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Remember to get some sleep. It has been busy of late. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Welcome back! :) – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:welcome back :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:I object. They said they synthesized and that is a policy violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

::Fortunately, there's a shortcut for everything, SFR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

{{done}}. 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks! :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:welcome back!!! very happy to see this :3 Rexo (talk | contributions) 03:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• {{Request for permission links|Fastily}}

Following the outcome of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily, I am electing to resign. I will not be seeking reconfirmation, thanks. -Fastily 08:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your service. Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your service. Particurly after performing over 646668 admin actions including over 635368 deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for all the work you have done as an admin. I have often seen your contributions in my watchlist and truly appreciated them. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Echo the above. Good luck, Fastily. Acalamari 09:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for all the hard work you have done; unfortunately, it often goes unthanked for. As for me: I will miss you as an admin. Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for being at Wikipedia for 16 years. Good luck and have a great life outside Wikipedia. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks, Fastily. We appreciate the dignity with which you've carried yourself through these activities. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

: What a shame. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:I believe "own goal" is the sports term for this. One of our most productive admins has just been sacked. I am not happy. And WP:RECALL is a trainwreck. I can't blame Fastily at all for saying "no thanks" to another RFA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::Perhaps the RfA process needs an overhaul... Buffs (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:::This is a perennial idea. WP:RFA2021, WP:RFA2024, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

::::It is indeed, and several of the ideas that came out of the last round have at least been given a trial run. I still don't really understand why admin recall was lumped in with that, though; admin recall has as much to do with RFA (and RFA improvement) as the blocking policy does. Risker (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I mean, it's quite frankly a bit late in the day to be raising that particular objection, but my recollection is that the idea was that if it was easier to remove admins, maybe it would be easier to make new ones, and therefore it is part of the same "suite" of proposals. Whether that is turning out to actually be the case certainly has not been established as of right now.

:::::The process to get these new things up and running was both long and confusing and I, and I expect many others, kind of walked away after a while as it seemed nothing was actually going to come of it, but the folks who kept with it managed to get this through and here we are. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::I see your point, JSS. On the other hand, I don't think many admins or editors would have expected to have an "admin recall" section in an RFC on RFA, so a proposal that failed several times when it was a standalone proposal managed to sneak past almost everyone's radar. I don't assume any bad faith there, but I do think that those who were running the RFC should have politely suggested that particular proposal was out of scope, but could well be run separately. Risker (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I certainly didn't realise that the RFA RFCs were doing anything regarding admin recall. I didn't feel I had anything useful to offer regarding RFA so chose not to invest my time in the process, but would likely have participated in one regarding admin recall. I support the concept of a recall process, as long as it is as fair as possible to all parties and all foreseeable major issues are dealt with before they arise. What we've ended up with does not currently tick either of those boxes, although with some major changes I think it has the potential to which is why I'm so engaged with the the pre-RFC workshopping at WP:REWORK. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Likewise, {{u|Thryduulf}}; I do think the time has come for a community-based admin recall process. If it had been a separate RFC, I would have eked out the time to participate. Perhaps that is where we will be heading soon. Risker (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for all your hard work, Fastily. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:You might recall me prodding you to ask for your bit back every time you came to WP:AN to point out a backlog between your adminships. I've never regretted that, despite the quibbles I've had with some of your actions. —Cryptic 21:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your service and hard work here. At times like this Wikipedia truly does suck!, I wish you all the very best, Take care and stay safe. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks. jp×g🗯️ 17:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your service. It's truly sad to see you leave like this. I wish you all the very best in real life and hope to see you return someday. The new policy seriously needs to be reconsidered, forcing re-RfA on only 25 endorsements, when RfAs are getting passed with 150-300 supports, is just absurd. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{rfplinks|Dennis Brown}}

Please remove my admin bit for the time being. I don't need any other advance privileges at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks, Dennis for your years of diligent competence in service to our mission. BusterD (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for your service and hope you will get back soon. Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks. jp×g🗯️ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:Dennis, you've been an inspiration to me and to this project for nearly 2 decades. Thank you so much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks - this is a pretty straightforward question. After the success of the recent administrator elections, I think it's pretty clear that the community liked this big change in how we select administrators. Most commentary about it was positive. It's reasonable to think that most candidates in the future will opt to participate in elections rather than the regular RFA process, given the choice. Thus, bureaucrats are unlikely to have to make many decisions about which candidates pass or fail at RFA. Would bureaucrats be willing to take on the role of election administrators for these elections in the future? The work isn't that difficult and requires a minimum of technical know-how and a willingness to communicate with the WMF staff who manage SecurePoll instances. (While comments from community members are welcome, I'd really like to see responses from the bureaucrats.) Risker (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:Have all the other components of how elections are going to technically and procedurally (e.g. who will scrutineer) been resolved yet? In general the election admins just need to make sure the right names are on the ballot, and make decisions about errors (such as someone missing from the electoral roll). The most complicated administrative component has been building and validating a whitelist of eligible votes - this can be complex if it will be required. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:So long as we can address any issues, I don't mind personally being involved. I do think that the crat role should be linked with admin promotion in whatever form that takes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:I was the de facto election administrator in the last election. I received positive feedback. I think replacing me with the bureaucrats needs further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/RFC workshop#Supervising the election.

:I also think the assumption that AELECT will replace RFA is a bit premature. Each process has pros and cons. For example with RFA you can do it whenever, it's not dependent upon software (SecurePoll) or busy partner groups (WMF T&S, scrutineers, etc.), it is extremely transparent so gets the candidate blunt but actionable feedback, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

::I think the intent of this question is to determine whether the 'crats would be willing to take on the role if requested. If they aren't then there is little point in presenting that option in the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Exactly, {{u|Thryduulf}}. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:Do you mean specifically who is eligible to receive the electionadmin right, as discussed at {{section link|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 214|Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right}}, in order to setup and configure SecurePoll-based polls? I think the community still needs to discuss this further (along with who should gain access to personal identifiable information, in cases where polls are configured to collect it). If you mean who helps manage the elections, I think that can continue to be done by volunteers, as is done for the arbitration committee elections. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:In my reading, this electionadmin right appears to be pretty adjacent to the checkuser right, which requires self-identifying to the WMF. Can someone confirm if the electionadmin right requires the same? If so, I will, unfortunately, have to decline to participate in that role. Useight (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::Please note unlike several years ago, you no longer need to send any copies of identify documents to WMF. GZWDer (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::To clarify, *if* it is necessary for electionadmins to "identify", the process is to sign a confidentiality agreement that does not need to link to the user's real-world identity. (You'll have to click through on the links, it's stored on Foundation Wiki now.) Nobody has to self-identify to the WMF, with the exception of prospective WMF Board of Trustees members. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the information, Risker (and isaacl). Useight (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::I can't find the corresponding comment right now, but my understanding is that it's currently a bug that the electionadmin right provides access to personal identifiable information (PII), and there's a Phabricator ticket open to fix the bug. If that's fixed, just the user rights assigned to scrutineers would provide access to PII. isaacl (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::This discussion is a little confusing because "election admin" could refer to something similar to WP:ACE's "electoral commission", or it could also refer to SecurePoll scrutineers (the "electionadmin" MediaWiki permission group), and it is unclear which Risker was referring to. I assumed the former, but Useight and others may be assuming the latter.

:::The Phab ticket to separate editing elections from scrutineering (seeing private data) is phab:T377531. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::To be clear, I mean handling the background work of the election: set-up, ensuring timely completion of tasks, verifying eligibility; the technical end of things. Scrutineering is a separate issue; much as I trust bureaucrats, I know that is probably a lot further from their bailiwick than would make sense given that 'crats are chosen for consensus-interpretation rather than Checkuser-like skills. I'll note in passing that it is possible to have a local instance of SecurePoll, which would largely take the WMF staffing out of the picture. I'm not advocating for that at this time. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::If bureaucrats want to volunteer (as some do for the arbitration committee elections), that's great! Based on experience so far, though, I don't feel that limiting the co-ordination tasks to just bureaucrats is needed. (Note the bureaucrats were asked about being involved with the trial run.) isaacl (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I see that change gerrit:1083337 has been merged. Thus if I understand correctly, PII is no longer being shown to users with the electionadmin right. (I thought it had been fixed already but wasn't sure.) isaacl (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::It's hard to explain, but that patch does not resolve the ticket. It is just a small step towards that ticket. There are also 2 other pending patches, and more patches after these 3 will be needed to finish the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I understood. I was only noting that the specific concern raised by Useight is not a factor for the electionadmin right. isaacl (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::"electionadmin" is not a right, it is a group. Earlier, being a member of the group enabled seeing PII. This has been fixed. SecurePoll still has this weird concept of allowing other actions on virtue of group membership, as opposed to the rest of MediaWiki in which they're allowed through possession of rights (which in turn comes from group membership). As Novem says, this makes things difficult to explain, but it's being fixed through the other two patches. – SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, I skimmed the tickets so read about that work item. My apologies for getting the specific distinctions wrong; I default to thinking about permissions in terms of user rights, not user groups. isaacl (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:Over the years the 'crat role has been expanded and contracted by the community and the WMF as the needs of the project have changed, so if the community thinks bureaucrats would be suitable for this new role, I’m sure at least some of us, myself included, would be happy to help out in that way as time allows. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::I feel like there are two questions here: are the 'crats willing to do this, and does the community want/need them to do it? I'm not sure where I land on that second one but it needs to be part of the conversation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Per Risker's response to me upthread, this discussion is only about the first of your questions. The community doesn't need the 'crats to do this (in the technical sense at least), hence question 2 is dependent on the answer to question 1. If the 'crats are willing to do this, then whether the community want them two will be asked (and hopefully answered) in the forthcoming RFC - see Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/RFC workshop#Supervising the election. Thryduulf (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

::::I think there is still a gap of "what are the duties of the electionadmin". There are many open RFC's and tech tickets right now, so what even the near-term end state is still ambiguous. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. {{admin|Titoxd}}
2. : Last logged admin action: November 2023
3. {{admin|Panyd}}
4. : Last logged admin action: November 2023
5. {{admin|John M Wolfson}}
6. : Last logged admin action: October 2023

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

:none

:Thank you all for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

{{moved from|WP:AN}}

I came across Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kharavela Deva while patrolling Special:NewPages. The user is not elligible (not extended confirmed) and the RfA should be closed. Could an admin familiar with this type of thing handle it? Thanks. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Meh, it is not transcluded nor has anything been subst'ed to "start" the RFA. I see no harm in leaving it there for now. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{nao|bureaurocart}} If it hasn't been opened, how can it be closed? SerialNumber54129 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have left a message on the user's talkpage with some general advice regarding requesting adminship. Useight (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Well you might be interested in Wikipedia:Database reports/Unfiled RfAs, which contains quite a few unfiled RfAs. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Tide rolls}}

Please remove my admnin bit. Due to circumstances beyond my control (mostly), I won't be able to effectively serve in that capacity. Thanks Tiderolls 18:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. 28bytes (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for your many years of service to the pedia, Tide rolls. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:I hope your circumstances change for the better, Tide rolls. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|MaxSem}}

Hi, my participation in the recent years was just drive-by edits, so while it would be cool to just have the banhammer lying around just in case, there's no actual need for it. Thus, I'd like to resign. Thanks! Max Semenik (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

: {{Done}} I've done that, thanks for all you did as an admin. Do you still want edit filter, and would you like Rollback or any other rignts? ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:: Thank you {{u|WereSpielChequers}}, I'd like rollback. I'll request more if I need it. Max Semenik (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Just happened to have this on my watchlist, so I took care of it for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

: Thanks a lot for your service. Just to remind everyone, Maxsem, in addition to being admin here for ages, used to serve as a steward, and also as CU at the Russian Wikipedia (possibly the first ever CU there, but I am not sure).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:: Thank you! Max Semenik (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Do you want to retain edit-filter manager? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for the heads-up. 28bytes (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{rfplinks|BozMo}}

I am unlikely in the next year (until I retire Jan 2026) to be able to put much time into this project so would be happy to be de-sysoped. Thanks BozMo talk 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your service. I'll remove the bit now. Do you have any advanced rights that you'd like to retain? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{replyto|BozMo}} Indeed, thanks for your service both as an admin and as an editor; we've only met briefly on this project, but I remember your editing here and had very good impressions of it. There's one thing I think it's worth noting though: you won't be able to get your admin status back without an RFA because your last logged admin action was more than five years ago, in December 2013, after this rule change. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the consensus established at WP:VPT here: WP:VPT#VPNgate blocking bot, my bot User:MolecularBot is authorized to edit within it's userspace making edits to User:MolecularBot/IPData.json (a BRFA is not required per WP:EXEMPTBOT).

I've tested for only a couple edits and can confirm it is working fully correctly, identifying the "egress" IPs of VPNgate (see discussion on VPT for what this means and why a bot is needed) and logging them in the userspace page - identifying ones used in past by MAB (59.129.113.197) and concerningly some unblocked ones (126.126.190.85, 222.98.171.131) in only a 7 IP sweep.

Can it please get flagged with the bot perm, as currently it's running into very low rate limits preventing it from functioning correctly (as seen by the very few IPs its been allowed to add to the list)?

Thank you. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 05:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:While BRFA is not required for userspace-only bots, it's better to file it anyway if you want a bot flag. – SD0001 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::Okay, thank you! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{not done}} per above, bots that needs flags need to go to WP:BRFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a live RfA which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) Levivich (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met.

::Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Primefac}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAreaseven&diff=1264426551&oldid=1264383087 They've accepted]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Daniel}}

Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per WP:ACE2024, upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (statement, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024%2FCandidates%2FDaniel%2FQuestions&diff=1260084325&oldid=1260012788 comment]).

Original desysop request here in the BN archives for ease of reference.

Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{done}}

Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Ferret}}

Hi Bureaucrats. I'm requesting the removal of my administrator rights as of January 1, 2025, as I will be generally retiring. I would like my previous rights (autopatrolled, extended confirmed user, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor) restored. I would have waited a little closer to request but might not be online the next couple days. Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:I've emailed Arbcom separately about checkuser, just as info! -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:Per your wishes, I have removed the tools. I realise this is a day or so early, so if you do need to use the tools in the meantime I can revert

:On a personal note, I'm sad to see you go. Thank you for your service. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for your years of service, Ferret. Enjoy your retirement! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Indeed. Appreciate all you've done to get us here. BusterD (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:ferret, thank you for all your service, and thanks especially for being such a great mentor, colleague, and friend. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So, are we losing ZERO administrators in January 2025 due to inactivity (see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#January 2025)? When was the last month that happened? I guess most inactive admins have already lost their privileges (there was a big group in 2023) and we are down to just active admins, well, at least active in editing if not admin work. That Criterion 2 made a big impact.

Happy New Year, everyone! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:October 2023? Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

:Aug 2024. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

::I think we may have indeed at least approached a time when inactivity desysops will go down to almost nothing. I think this is the first time that I can say I think our standard for admin activity are sufficient and are working as intended. It's been a long road. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Careful not to mistake a data point for a trend. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::::True, I've just causally observed it, I haven't kept stats, but when the latest round of inactivity rules were established we were seeing about three per month. We're still seeing that some months, but other months there are just one or two, and apparently this month, none. I have also noticed an uptick in admins voluntarily handing in tools but I haven't got stats for that either. On the other hand, we may be losing as many as seven next month. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::All desysoppings of administrators due to inactivity have been logged by month at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators since shortly after the process started. Graham87 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A more useful statistic would be drawn from the actual admin action logs from the admins lost due to inactivity over the last 14 years. It would reveal just how significant their loss was - or wasn't. A random check I just made tends to show that many of them hardly ever used their tools at all. This might bust the myth that the attrition is as critical as the community is led to believe. Many admins also lost interest in the use of the tools shortly after passing their RfA, which could lead one to believe that there is a certain social capital to be gained with having one's signature highlighted in yellow everywhere - active or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:I was poking around the admins due to be desysopped under criterion two next month, and one of them hasn't used an admin tool in eleven years. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 16:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:It has probably always been true that the 80-20 rule applies. Looking at [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/adminstats/en.wikipedia.org/2024-01-01/2025-01-01], a few admins performed thousands of logged admin actions last year, while there is a quick drop as you go down the list, with a long tail of admins with a very low number (or none) of logged admin actions. Rather than worrying about how many admins we have, we need to worry about retaining the small number of admins that do most of the admin work. Donald Albury 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::An important aspect to keep in mind is that there are plenty of administrative tasks that don't log admin actions, such as declining unblock requests, declining protection requests, processing entries at WP:CFDS/Working, and a number of other tasks (with those just being the ones that sprung to mind for me). While I'm sure we all know this, I wanted to mention it for anybody reading that hadn't considered that the raw numbers aren't everything. I can think of a number of admins with less than a thousand actions last year who had more of an impact than I did with my 18 thousand+ actions (fifth overall for non bots). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I know, but I suspect that most very few admins that have few or no logged actions are instead performing a lot of unlogged admin tasks. Personally, I don't remember performing any unlogged admin tasks last year, and I try not to assume that I'm unique. Donald Albury 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the "not all admin actions are logged" argument is perhaps relevant in the short term, but if you haven't found occasion to preform any logged actions in over a decade, I find it highly unlikely you are doing admin work and just never, ever see a reason to use the tools. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 03:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, to be entirely clear, I don't think there's a niche of admins doing no admin actions but working exclusively in admin areas that don't log actions.

:::::I know that a few users who process submissions at WP:CFDS, such as Fayenatic london and Ymblanter, don't have their entire efforts and work reflected by the action count. My point was to illustrate that the numbers themselves don't necessarily reflect the actual work put in by some admins in general. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: We already have an edit filter logging edits to protected pages. We should ideally set up edit filters for all of the other types of unlogged "admin" action, along the same vein, and kibosh this entire concept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::You mean like closing XFD discussions or assessing unblocks, etc., as Hey man im josh notes above? - jc37 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Still not seeing it. What admin is active in closing AFDs, but never deletes anything, or is active in reviewing unblock requests, but never unblocks anyone? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::If an admin !votes at RFA and especially if they nominate, I would be very disappointed if they hadn't checked the candidates deleted edits. So that's one area where an admin might be using the tools without any recent logged admin actions. Looking at those stats I seem to do hundreds of edits for every logged admin action, and in recent years that ratio may have increased to around a thousand edits per admin action. But I like to think most of my 7,000 or so logged admin actions have been useful. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Jokes have no place on Wikipedia. Because I am an extremely, extremely serious person, I have blocked JavaHurricane and desysopped Sennecaster. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi, I was checking the page and found that one oppose vote is found in the support section. @AmandaNP closed it at 230-0-0. But as per @JavaHurricane's vote on support no. 207, it should be ended as 229-1-0. I didn't expected that administrators or monitor @Tamzin has overlooked it. Can this issue be fixed? {{small|(P.S.: I don't know whether should I brought this in BN or AN but as I think RfAs are handled by Crats, so I brought it here.)}} -- ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Tagging @Sennecaster for informing this. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::I also sense that JavaHurricane was making a joke—{{tq|poor judgement because of running late for mop?}}, clearly a joke. The AP (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

: It's a joke. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::I apologize for not getting that joke and wasted my time bothering you all. I got it well now. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

There is a discussion on an article on Signpost that maybe of interest to bureaucrats, on whether it is appropriate of an admin should close his own re-request for adminship as a sign of resigning. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-24/Opinion

I took the position that it is inappropriate for the said admin to do so. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Opposition to your stated position has been unanimous over the two days since you posted it. There's nothing for 'crats to do here. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see how it would be inappropriate to withdraw your own RfA. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Hey man im josh, AIUI the issue SYSS Mouse has is not with withdrawing, but with closing the discussion following (or at the same time as) withdrawal. In the linked discussion I've given a lengthy reply why I don't regard that as inappropriate either, but the distinction may be important to you (or others reading this). Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Thryduulf, that is a bit less straight forward than I originally thought. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My 2¢: In general one should avoid closing discussions they've participated in (or are about them) but I see no problem whatsoever with withdrawing from an RfA and closing it as withdrawn. It would be a different matter if (for example) someone started an AN/I discussion, it started to boomerang, and they closed it with a "nevermind" before they received any warnings or sanctions... but that's very different from what Graham did. Kudos to him for saving the 'crats a step with the paperwork. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:100% agree with 28bytes. -- Amanda (she/her) 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:No concerns with someone withdrawing an RFA and doing the paperwork for it, however for a RECALL RFA this would only be acceptable if immediate notice is also left here (as was done in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_50#Desysop_request_(Graham87)). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• {{rfplinks|Arcticocean}}
• Previous username: AGK

Hello. I requested self-removal of my sysop permissions in June 2021. At that time, I was becoming too busy in real life to regularly contribute to Wikipedia, a situation made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic. I returned as a regular contributor to Wikipedia some months ago but have been taking time to catch up on changes in the community. Although I remained occasionally active whilst away, I felt it important not to request the tools back until I was sure of still being in touch with the community's standards. As I'm now permanently back and have been for some time, I am requesting restoration of my sysop permissions. With thanks, arcticocean ■ 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Desysop request is at Special:Permalink/1138384955#Desysop request (AGK). – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Last admin action appears to be May 2021. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it too late to appoint them to this year's ArbCom? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes 8-) -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yes it's too late, or yes that was an uncharacteristically good idea? Or both? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm enjoying my retirement from that role, although the arbitrator's pension isn't what it used to be. arcticocean ■ 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::(slightly - just slightly - sinister tone) It's not necessarily up to you...--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! arcticocean ■ 16:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Am full-time with work and don't presently have need for admin tools. Can {{Userrights|Euryalus}} please be desysopped for now. All the best -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for your service. Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

:none

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. {{admin|Lethe}}
2. {{admin|Jarry1250}}

Graham87 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{smalldiv|1=Wow, not listed by Xaos! Can't say I've seen that before. charlotte ^👸♥ 07:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)}}

::It last happened in October last year. Before Xaosflux became a bureaucrat, I used to regularly post these notifications; before then, Moe Epsilon did so. Graham87 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I do go offline sometimes! — xaosflux ^Talk 11:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:Jarry1250 is a reasonably active bot maintainer; it feels wrong to classify them as "inactive". —Kusma (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::I remember this user fondly too, but they did make fewer than 100 edits in five years ... Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not questioning that the policy applies here (it clearly does), I am just trying to point out that there are ways to be active that do not manifest themselves as edits. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{done|Removed}}. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

{{rfplinks|Wugapodes}}

Life has slowed down and I have more time to volunteer. Poking around WP:RM, it turns out that non-trivial page moves are hard even with page mover. Instead of making extra work for myself and others, I'd like the tools back. Link to resignation for convenience. — Wug·a·po·des 00:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yay! Admin action exactly a year ago, so well within the five year rule. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Standard 24h hold in place, though I do not see any difficulties here. Primefac (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:A monumental good thing. Glad to see these permissions renewed. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to note that User:JSherman (WMF), an engineer on my team, was [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights?page=User:JSherman_(WMF)@enwiki granted admin rights] (per policy) on English Wikipedia for the purposes of testing Special:Nuke. Specifically, to test performance of the 'SQL LIKE' filter, which often causes DB timeouts due to the large volume of edits made to en.wiki, not to actually take any logged administrator actions. He received an inactivity notice this week because - obviously - he's not an active administrator (or editor) here. We'll have the admin right removed once we're done testing this issue, but I wanted to make sure his rights weren't removed prematurely due to inactivity. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Samwalton9 (WMF) no worries, those notices are automatic (bot job), but removals are always manual, and we only process them monthly - and would skip staffers. Log link for our reference: :meta:Special:Redirect/logid/58565887. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! and @Samwalton9 (WMF) I actually requested indefinite access so that we would have at least one maintainer who could fully troubleshoot in production. JSherman (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::: And you can make two more edits and the bot will stop bothering you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::While true, it seems ridiculous to expect "two more edits" just to game a bot. No reason the bot can't be programmed to ignore clearly labeled staff accounts (i.e., those with "(WMF)" in the username). Risker (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::I can see there being value in continuing to highlight these accounts to the 'crats so that admin rights can be removed from any such accounts that no longer need them. The current set-up may not be the best way of doing this of course, but simply ignoring them doesn't seem the best way either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Under foundation:Policy:WMF_Staff_Userrights_Policy I don't think the crats are allowed to remove the user rights from staff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{reply|Barkeep49}} broken link, it's at [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:WMF_Staff_Userrights_Policy]? Serial (speculates here) 20:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes. I've fixed it above as well. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Cheers. But on the substantive issue, the page says {{blue|the community may still undo you if an action harms the projects}}, excepting office actions; I take that to mean the crats could in fact desysop? (Although only if harm has been done, and of course that's not (and I'm not suggesting otherwise!) the case here.) Perhaps I am misreading it. Serial (speculates here) 20:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That's under user of the tools which makes sense (and I am glad to have). The relevant wording, for me, comes from the introduction {{tqq|...staff work user rights are granted and removed through the staff process (rather than the community process)...}} and the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:WMF_Staff_Userrights_Policy#Removal_of_access removal section] which offers three ways for removal: Self request, By Trust & Safety staff on their own initiative, and Upon departure from the Foundation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Right, check 👍🏿 Serial (speculates here) 21:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::So, does that mean that even if a staffer crossed over into inactivity, a Bureaucrat couldn't remove the tools? If that's true, then no changes need to be made to the bot. Maybe messages shouldn't be sent out at all if the status of staffers isn't affected by Bureaucrat action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::This is an edge case, ideally this situation shouldn't be needed, but if {{ping|JJMC89}} wants to update their bot to exclude usernames ending in (WMF) that's fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Just a question about an edge case; does Wikimedia have code which prohibits ordinary users from creating names with "(WMF)" at the end? Or do such cases have to be caught manually by an administrator after the fact? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::'WMF' is in the global title blacklist for new usernames (they are all usually created by another WMF account on meta). The convention for the last few years has been to use '-WMF' instead of '(WMF)', so both username formats exist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Perhaps things have changed in the last decade or so, but I recall an incident where arbcom was able to desysop someone who they couldn't block because he was a staffer. Perhaps things are different in this case because this particular staffer may need the admin rights to do his job, and no one seems to have any concern about them other than the activity levels. However I think it reasonable with any dormant WMF Account that we ask ourselves at least the questions: Is this individual still at the WMF? And do they need admin rights to do their WMF work? I'm assuming the answer is yes to both questions for this individual, but if we are considering the principle, we'd need to consider those questions for any future inactive WMF Account. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: That would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Even ignoring the WMF-related issues ArbCom was against banning, although they did consider it and it was awkward. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I'll just add a quote from User:JSutherland (WMF), that "our offboarding process includes the locking of these accounts, so I generally wouldn't worry too much about that part" (diff). In my experience that seems fairly credible. To be fair, that's not exactly the same as not needing rights any longer. However I'd imagine the number of admin users without an RfA is going to be absolutely tiny. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

:none

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. {{admin|Nohat}}
2. {{admin|Someguy1221}}

Graham87 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}, noting that Someguy1221 also has EFM; I know this is occasionally granted to non-admins, but since the -sysop was for inactivity it might be reasonable to consider removing EFM as well. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::WP:EFM#Criteria for revocation says {{tpq|Additionally, the [EFM] right may be automatically revoked by any administrator from an edit filter manager who has been inactive for a duration of 12 full months.}} Someguy1221's most recent edit was in November last year so removal isn't automatic. But a discussion at WP:EFN would be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Discussion started, see Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard#Inactive EFM (user:Someguy1221). Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Request restoration of admin bit. I understand there is a 24 hour waiting period. I don't expect to get back as busy as I once was and don't really have the desire to, but can help out every now and then. Feel free to email me if there are any questions, or CU me. Different location but it will still be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Let's see if I do this right All looks good (last use in 2024, no cloud, etc) and given the recent activity seems like a credible intent to return. So I see no issues with restoring after the 24 hour period. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Just 2 more rights changes to go for Dennis to be back at the top (excl. test accounts). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks {{u|Barkeep49}}. And {{u|Tamzin}}, it wasn't on purpose. If I know I'm going to be gone a few months+, it just seems the best thing to do, security-wise. Handy to help enforce a wikibreak as well, and to keep from taking this place too seriously. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, @Dennis Brown, I didn't mean it at all as a criticism. You'll see I'm pretty high on that list too, partly for some of the same reasons. I just find it a funny statistic to track. My money's on @Queen of Hearts to be the recordholder someday. She's got the same background as me as a multi-hatted jack-of-all-trades before becoming an admin, but shares your tendency to resign permissions when not in use, moreso than me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.playerup.com/threads/selling-old-wikipedia-admins-accounts-6-years-to-20-years.5416388/

suspect it to potentially be money sent, not product scam Luhanopi (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:I feel like I've seen this post before, and I suspect that when checked either the accounts will be active editors (e.g. Elli) or not-admin inactive accounts. Not worth getting our skirts blown up over. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Your memory serves you well: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#admin accounts offered for sale in an online forum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Try looking at the advertised accounts for sale. All of the supposed screen shots are of the main page on the same day. {{ping|Elli}} has been editing today, others do not exist, one is are currently blocked. Donald Albury 20:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::The same minute, even. Must have been switching accounts quickly. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::See the above linked discussion; it's the same page. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I realised that (I was being facetious). — Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

: I've been notified of this three times, I think, over the past few years. No idea why they chose my account for this, but I can promise y'all that I will never sell my account. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title=Extended friendly banter Fathoms Below (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)}}

::{{smalldiv|1=that sounds like what someone who is selling their account would say... ({{tone indicator|j}}) charlotte ^👸♥ 23:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)}}

::They really ought to raise the price now that you're an arb. -- asilvering (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::You may purchase a jump rope, but if you can't operate it, people notice right away. If this is so obvious at the PGAME level, the unfit permissions holder must be quite apparent to most of us. BusterD (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You say that, but then there's me, and I can prove I didn't buy my mop. So there goes your theory out the window with the mop water... DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::On the other hand, out of a pool of so many, who'd notice another one? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

{{adminlinks|NaomiAmethyst}}

I'd like to get my mop back under WP:RESYSOP as they were previously removed under WP:INACTIVITY. I understand there is a waiting period. — Naomi Amethyst 05:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes! Welcome back! Admin action in October 2022 (or if you want a non-U1 action, December 2021), so well within the five year rule. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Welcome back! (note that the desysop was under a different username). charlotte ^👸♥ 05:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|NaomiAmethyst}}, I take it then that you have decided to return to more regular activity? My main concern is that your last ~100 edits have been in the last 12 hours, with the next 100 going back six years. I know I do not speak for all bureaucrats, but ideally I'd like to see a bit more activity before asking for the mop. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{nao}} Indeed, Primefac. Although a different context, there's a topic ban appeal about to be rejected also on the grounds of insufficient activity leading up to the request... and that was with more edits over a longer period than evidenced here. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::That is my intention, {{u|Primefac}}. — Naomi Amethyst 16:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi @NaomiAmethyst, I'm the new kid around here but I share Primefac's general thoughts. I do consider "returned to activity" to include being up to date with the community around changes to norms/procedures/policies and so I was wondering what you have done to update yourself with protection and deletion practices (for instance, with the introduction of partial blocks I have seen certain scenarios with a pblock is used where protection might have been used in the past) as the two areas I see from your log that you've worked before. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Naomi, it looks like your signature is at 125% size, which is going against WP:SIGAPP - which most editors expect admins to follow. Could you update it please? BugGhost 🦗👻 19:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's also 407 characters long, which is well over the 250 character limit described in the guidelines, and it contains templates/#if statements, which is a hard no. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::My bad, I didn't realize that {{tl|colored link}} (which my signature used to subst) had gotten so long since I originally set my signature. I've updated it to a shorter, more hand-crafted version. — Naomi Amethyst 22:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

: This should go through RFA. Carrite (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::RFA is not strictly required in this situation, as those inactivity restoration requirements have not yet triggered. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think Carrite was expressing their opinion that adminship should not be automatically regranted in this situation (for reasons they don't give) rather than saying RFA is the only policy-permitted way for NaomiAmethyst to regain the bits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah, fair enough. At this point in time, it is looking like the general opinion of opining 'crats is not to reappoint, but personally speaking I would have no issue with granting the mop back in say 3-6 months if consistent editing is shown. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::"opining crats" being two of us so not much of anything at this point (though if others don't weigh in at some point that says something). I agree with Primefac that I do not think we in "must re-RFA" territory based on the consensus the community has currently established, but instead 3-6 months of consistent editing would be sufficient for me to support restoration. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I will clarify. Given the contribution history (187 edits this month, about the same number as the last 78 or so months combined) there is no way — NONE — that this editor would pass RFA today. Why should No Big Deal era administrators get a complementary re-tooling from Crats given absolutely no evidence that they meet contemporary standards for passing an RFA today, nor any demonstrable need for tools whatsoever? Carrite (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hold on {{u|Carrite}}, to be fair, they made 154 logged admin actions between 2009 and 2022. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:Worth mentioning that NaomiAmethyst is the primary author of {{u|ClueBot}} and a key author of {{u|ClueBot NG}}. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::In that case, it's also worth mentioning that of Cluebot NG's three handlers, {{noping|Rich Smith}} is the only one to have maintained consistent engagement with the project. All Hail Rich Smith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::<3 Thanks {{u|Fortuna imperatrix mundi}} - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not suggesting a 10-person crat chat or anything, but if it takes more than a day and a half to get a 3rd crat to comment, maybe we do need substantially more crats? Glad to see Barkeep jumping in right away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Theoretically the decision can be made unilaterally, though I do see your point when it comes to non-trivial requests. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Chiming in so we know how long it takes for a third 'crat to comment. Useight (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I’ve been following this thread, but was waiting for {{u|NaomiAmethyst}} to reply to what Barkeep said before I added any comments. I was hoping NA would offer a reassuring comment and Barkeep or I or another ’crat would say “sounds good” and flip the bit. Looks like maybe that opportunity may have been missed, though, which is a shame. 28bytes (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I hadn't had the time to really respond to that yet, but I think it goes without saying that I would re-read any policies in areas I wanted to start performing admin actions in. But I'm also happy to wait, there is no deadline. I figured I had time to work on Wikipedia and intention and desire to again -- mostly around anti-vandalism which has always been my primary area of focus -- and that the tools would help there, but I'm also fine to wait. — Naomi Amethyst 19:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm going to mark this as {{not done}} for now, with no prejudice against a future request in 3-6 months following a period of sustained activity. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC) {{small|struck timeline per comments below, this is a rather silly timeframe. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)}}

::I don't really see a basis in policy for that. You as an individual bureaucrat can of course demand any shrubbery you want before you flip the bit, but any other bureaucrat could just decide to accept the request in good faith. Shouldn't a resysop criterion "people desysopped for inactivity must have shown sustained editing for 3-6 months" be passed by the community instead of being introduced ad hoc by two bureaucrats? The RESYSOP policy says just "before restoring administrator permissions to an account, a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a bureaucrat chat." The suitability criteria here are related to WP:CLOUD, there is nothing about "might not be up to date with policies". —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am more than happy to discuss it further with my fellow bureaucrats, but if none of them offer contention to my decision then the consensus is that it is an acceptable decision to make. Marking the request neither auto-archives it or hats the discussion, nor does a decline mean that a formal "crat chat" in the sense of an RFA must take place. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::As the requester specifically said {{tq|...I'm also happy to wait...}} this doesn't seem to need any further deliberation from 'crats right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Of course the requester is allowed to wait, but I don't see any reason why they should be asked to wait. There is no policy that even suggests "sustained editing for 3-6 months" as a necessary condition for resysop, and I do not want a non-resysop here to be cited as a new precedent. Two bureaucrats should not make policy by fiat like that and then declare the discussion closed by placing a "not done" template; whether the requester is happy to acquiesce is beside my point. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Kusma, you are correct there is no defined standard. Each editor should be looked at individually and the totality of the circumstances taken into account when determining whether or not the requestor {{tqq|has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor}}. This is why after 24 hours I flipped the bits on Dennis - I felt clearly that standard had been met. And it's why I support Primefac's decision here. Given this editor's involvement with the project, a few months of activity does seem appropriate in meeting the standard set by the community. The community has chosen to give the crats not an objective standard - 3-6 months - but a qualitative one and I support Primefac's application of that standard in this case. And as xaosflux notes the requester seems to understand it as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Kusma if you feel that there should be some objective standards, for activity, for what constitutes a consensus of crats, how many crats need to comment on a request, or anything else then you are free to propose that. However what you don't get to do is complain that crats are applying their subjective discretion when that is what the community has instructed them to do.

:::::::Personally I think the system is currently working as intended so I'd have to be convinced that a proposed change would be beneficial in some way I hadn't considered, but I don't get to set community consensus any more than you do. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought the whole point of crats was that they were people the community trusted to make this kind of subjective judgement. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The whole point of RfA/RfB is selecting editors who have the community's trust. And I agree, that - based upon many discussions in the past - that includes decisions like this. It's also part of why we now wait 24 hours to flip the switch. It allows for possible discussion in case there are any issues to be brought up. And in looking at this discussion, it would seem like the system is working. - jc37 15:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It makes no sense to me to demonstrate an "intention to return to activity as an editor" by 3-6 months of actual sustained editing (that is why it looks like a demand for a shrubbery to me). It may be a reasonable way to determine that an editor has indeed returned to editing, but it is not a measure for "intention" at all. It seems to me that Primefac and Barkeep49 have decided that the "intention" clause does not apply to NaomiAmethyst. Perhaps the "intends to return" clause is bad and shouldn't be there, but I would strongly prefer it to be abolished by a community discussion, not by the bureaucrats. —Kusma (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I used the intention clause when evaluating Dennis Brown's request so I dispute the idea that I have done something to abolish it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ok, so the actual policy then seems to be "should have returned to active editing, but a bureaucrat may decide that the intention to return to editing is sufficient"? —Kusma (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No. I would support crats following the current policy's wording that {{tqq|a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.}} and so if a crat is not reasonably convinced they don't regrant sysop. I further support the idea that if there is {{tqq|doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a bureaucrat chat.}} Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I, for one, would say that Naomi {{tq|has returned to activity [...] as an editor}} already - her most recent contributions show this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::It seems we are talking past each other, but let me try to follow what you say. It seems bureaucrats do not believe that NA intends to return to active editing, otherwise someone would have flipped the bit as there are no clouds. NA now can prove you all wrong by actually returning to active editing. There does not seem to be much doubt about the suitability for restoration, as no bureaucrat chat has been opened; instead, the informal discussion was quickly declared over by Primefac before even half of the bureaucrats had said anything.

::::::::::::Overall, the resysop rules should be as clear as possible so people know what being desysopped entails. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I will just note that, since their case has been mentioned, that Dennis Brown voluntarily requested the removal their bit less than four months ago, so I think the crats could reasonably assume that they are up-to-date on community expectations on the use of admin tools. On the other hand, NaomiAmethyst lost their bit due to inactivity, and a specific concern expressed by the community when the second inactivity rule was adopted was that inactive admins may not be up-to-date on community expectations on the use of admin tools. It is therefore reasonable that crats might have concerns about whether a returning admin who lost the bit due to inactivity is familiar with current community expections. A day or two of resumed editing may not be enough time to become familiar with current expections. Donald Albury 21:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That is absolutely correct, and may actually be what the resysop policy should be talking about. If bureaucrats are to use their discretion to determine whether a resysop candidate can be trusted to be aware of current community expectations, something that can be demonstrated by a few months of nontrivial editing, just write that into the policy instead of asking for an "intention to return to editing". That may be a good and popular policy change, but I maintain it is a policy change. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::For what it's worth, I would've restored the admin bit, had I been the first to respond after the 24-hour wait period. To meet the requirement, a former admin simply needs to indicate an intent to return to activity. Not demonstrate a return to activity. Whether they have sufficiently refamiliarized themselves with any relevant information is an onus that is on them. Useight (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::If you would like to have a discussion on the matter, I am happy to do so; while we have declined most "just returned from near-zero activity" resysop requests in the past, I am willing to be convinced that this would be a reasonable departure from that precedentgeneral idea . Primefac (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC) {{small|updated, last non-return of tools was in 2022 with no similar cases between then and now, so I suppose it's not really that firm of a precedent when they're few and far between}}

::::::::::::::It feels to me like {{tqq|a former admin simply needs to indicate an intent to return to activity}} would mean all requests would satisfy the requirement and thus it's not really any requirement at all. As noted I think this intent is sufficient in a variety of cases, but is also insufficient in some cases with this being one of them for reasons I've expressed above. For what it's worth I'll copy the proposer's rationale for the language: {{tqq|It gives bureaucrats the discretion to turn down some of the most ridiculous resysop requests, while also incentivizing users who have been gone for extended periods to return to activity before requesting, or even after they have been turned down initially. It would not put a hard stop of someone from returning based on arbitrary numbers, and I think we could trust our 'crats to use their judgement as to what is a reasonable standard to hold people to here.}} I think it reasonable to say that the 100 edits actually demonstrated a return to activity as one that is not a {{tqq|most ridiculous resysop request}}, even if I don't hold that view. So that probably doesn't change Useight's ultimate conclusion (resysop). The one piece I would quibble with was Primefac's declaration of not done, given that procedures suggest a crat chat in controversial cases and Primefac and I both weighing in doesn't satisify that for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I believe the precise wording is "a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor." Different things would make different bureaucrats reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or reasonably convinced that the user intends to return to activity. If I'm convinced that the user intends to return to activity, then I would flip the bit. What indicates that the user intends to do so? I didn't say that just telling me that you (the general you) intend to will actually convincingly indicate an intent to return to activity. However, 100 edits before requesting? To me, that convinces me of an intent to return. That's fine if it doesn't convince you or Primefac; we're not a hivemind. But what I'm not going to do is flip the bit after another bureaucrat declines to do so. Regarding that previous request that Primefac mentions, Fribbler had 1% of the recent edits that NaomiAmethyst had at time of request, so that's worth noting, I think. To be clear, I am not suggesting that any bureaucrat change their mind, nor am I trying to convince any to do so. Useight (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I agree that bureaucrats were not given the responsibility of evaluating community trust when re-granting administator rights. Whether or not someone currently without administrative privileges has familiarized themselves with current norms is an issue of trust. When granting administrative privileges, the community decides it trusts the person in question to only take actions when in alignment with the current applicable guidance and expectations. The established community consensus is that bureaucrats do not have to be reasonably convinced that the requestor continues to hold the community's trust when re-granting administrator rights. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::If we're changing anything, the crucial thing is not community trust" but familiarity with current norms and expectations of administrators. This is what the "return to activity" is intended to demonstrate, because activity generally correlates with familiarity with current norms. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Level of activity as a proxy for familiarity with current norms is covered by the "Lengthy inactivity" item under {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrators|Restoration of admin tools}}. If there is sufficient community desire to increase these standards, then I think the community should discuss a change to that section. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Kusma, FWIW, the policy says "A bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor", not "A bureaucrat is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor", which does seem to indicate a single bureaucrat's opinion is sufficient. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think that the policy envisions a single bureaucrat veto, because it says immediately after that sentence: {{tq|Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the admin tools, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a discussion among bureaucrats.}} Sdrqaz (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, but that would go to no other bureaucrat objecting to Primefac, surely? One is enough. If someone objects, let's talk? This was open for four days before Primefac decided not now, come back in a while. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The community consensus regarding a return to activity was to leave it to the discretion of the bureaucrats. (I appreciate you opposed this proposal.) Also note that the consensus summary for the proposal to add the sentence on having a bureaucrat discussion as needed stated that support was based in part on the return to activity requirement. I agree that a suggestion for a level of editing made in the context of this request shouldn't form a binding precedent for future requests. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I am a former admin desysopped for inactivity. After a 10 year hiatus, I returned to active editing. It was only after a couple of months participation in AfDs and noticeboard discussions that I realized that there been dozens of little changes made while I was away. I think it was a good thing that I did not return to functioning as an admin right away — it took me awhile to get up to speed.

::::I encourage Naomi Amethyst to spend several months (and several thousand edits) participating in AfDs and noticeboard discussions before resuming admin work. Otherwise, you’ll end up on noticeboards, not just reading them. Expectations of admins are higher than they used to be. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::P.S., thanks for all you’ve done in the past and welcome back! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm fine with deferring to the collective Crats' judgement; that's what we asked them to do, and that's why they make the big money. But if they're looking for community input, I'd suggest that 3-6 months seems like a really long time; 1 month (maybe 2, I suppose) should be more than enough to gauge whether NA is returning to activity, shouldn't it? That, plus a reminder to start slow and listen to feedback, seems sufficient. I also wonder if the long 3-6 month duration was the trigger for the strength of Kusma's reaction? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, 3-6 months is a little bit of a nonsensical value given that a return to activity will be clearly apparent much sooner than that. I have struck that part of my earlier comment. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think that 1 month should be sufficient. {{ping|NaomiAmethyst}} does this seem reasonable and agreeable to you? In a very broad sense, my read is that a situation the community wants to avoid is where an admin returns and immediately gets back on the insufficient activity report. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not going to dispute any decision the 'crats come to—as I said earlier, I'm happy to wait if that is the decision, and I'm happy to contribute without the admin tools if that is the decision. I am in no desperate need of the tools. They would be useful, yes, but not required.

:::::::As far as intentions and commitments, I think I've expressed them well enough below in my response to {{u|Valereee}}.

:::::::That all being said, while it certainly wasn't my original intention, there is now more going on in this discussion thread than just the issue of my resysop request. This thread has become a more meta discussion around the policy in WP:RESYSOP. If my response here is going to allow a more expeditious close or deferral of the request, it may be prudent that the meta discussion move to its own thread so that the meta discussion can continue to a more natural conclusion regardless of how my request is disposed of. — Naomi Amethyst 02:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::What triggered me most was what I saw as an attempt to close the discussion at a time when other bureaucrats still could have flipped the bit. And indeed, more than 3 months looks like a lot (I am a dinosaur so I have other ideas what is a lot and what is not than most recent joiners, but my comparison is that I had just over 5 months of sustained editing when I passed RfA). In the 2019 discussion, I actually proposed "1 month of active editing per year of inactivity" as a way to avoid former sysops asking for the bit back with their first edit after several years of inactivity, something that had caused some uproar in the community after the Cyp and especially the Yelyos resysops. My proposal did not pass; instead we got "intends to return to activity", which does not seem to be working so well as a yardstick for bureaucrat discretion. —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:@NaomiAmethyst, your editing decreased markedly soon after your sysopping and since 2010 you've made fewer than 1000 edits. For us in 2025, that's a little jarring. Can you discuss why you stopped editing and why your situation has changed? Valereee (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::University happened, and then work. I was in high school back in 2007 and 2008 and I had copious amounts of free time which I invested in Wikipedia. Had I gotten the tools with my first couple of RFAs, I would have had significantly more opportunity to make use of the tools. However, with the timing of the last RFA that ultimately did end up passing, I simply haven't had time and energy to invest into Wikipedia. I didn't know that at the time, though, or I probably wouldn't have run for #4—high school was a breeze and my first couple of semesters at university had been manageable and so I thought I'd continue to have time for Wikipedia.

::I also am ADHD and while I have a much better understanding of it now, I didn't know back then and wasn't as knowledgeable about what that meant for me. My natural state is to hyper-focus on one or two projects at a time, and then move on. I learn all that I can about something, and am passionate about it until I am not. I am better at not completely dropping projects these days, but it requires a certain conscientiousness and self-awareness that I did not yet possess at that time in my life.

::I realized that I want to participate in Wikipedia—that it is important and meaningful to me in a way that I hadn't truly appreciated back when I was younger.

::I cannot guarantee how much time I will have going forward—I've found that life has a way of not being predictable—but it is my intention to contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not I am an admin. I can say that I won't misuse the admin tools if granted. I can also say that I will find ways to use them to benefit Wikipedia, at least a little and likely more.

::It wasn't my intention that this request be a contentious thing or that we as a community spend so much of our energy on this. I was nudged to ask for my permissions back after asking an admin to help with the unblocking following my findings at WP:OP so that I could do it myself, and if I am not granted admin back, there are processes and noticeboards that I can use to get help from other admins. — Naomi Amethyst 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The reason it's getting this much discussion is that normally someone with your experience would be a nonstarter at RfA. And the fact you RfA'd SO long ago, so much has changed in 15 years. I tend to be in the "tools for all well-intentioned, experienced, competent, civil editors" camp, and obviously your tech contributions have been really useful, but even for me around 10K edits and some sort of real content is kind of a basic requirement. Many content creators feel non-content creators have a hard time understanding the challenges facing content creators, so giving a non-content creator the authority to deny their requests for help or restrict their ability to edit is unnerving. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I really don't think that something as broken as RfA should in any way or form inform our resysop process, if only for the reason that former sysops are one of our main sources for admins at the moment. Just look at Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month: the number of resysops per year is comparable with and often exceeds the number of successful RFAs. I do hope that admin elections will fix this, but I do not think we can currently afford turning away former admins who offer to take up the tools. We do now have a community desysop process so any actual problems with a resysopped user can be dealt with even without Arbcom involvement. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was just explaining, not justifying. I suspect NA, if she keeps away from blocks of experienced editors and from denying page protections, etc., would do just fine. She seems thoughtful and civil. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Optional question from JPxG

::::15. Did you expect there to be this much paperwork?

:::jp×g🗯️ 15:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::If I ever retire from Wikipedia for a decade or so and come back to see that everyone's having a fairly pedantic argument with their Sunday afternoon over a simple request, I think I'll have a deep sense of nostalgia and pride. Would make me feel right at home again. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We've been [https://x.com/dtee_m/status/1882520243303829969 complemented on our professionalism and coordination]! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top|Following this discussion, access was restored (Special:Redirect/logid/168550400)}}

We've been having a bit of a cratchat above, which is appropriate under WP:RESYSOP, but given all the other thoughtful discussion it's gotten a bit lost. So I'm going to boldly create this subsection, and a place for community discussion below, to make sure we've reached consensus. As I'm reading things we have:

• Not yet - Barkeep
• Return - {{u|28bytes}}, {{u|Useight}}, {{u|WereSpielChequers}}, {{u|Xaosflux}}
• Waiting on answer - {{u|Primefac}}

Is that reading correct (especially as I'm not sure if 28bytes is a wait or a return based on their comment above)? Do any other crats want to weigh in? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Comment striken which no longer applies as table is updated Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, but my "not yet" there is fairly weak. I can't see needing an evaluation period longer than a month, and have asked the requester if they would agree to that. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::I think Primefac's not yet has also gotten weaker over the course of this conversation. However, I don't know that we need to pre-commit to a specific timetable in advance so much as our decision at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm still weak 'not yet' for the moment, just considering a maximum bound for a revisit if it comes to that. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I am waiting on a reply to the question posted by xaosflux before making any final decision (which for the moment is still broadly a "not yet"). Primefac (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Primefac}} see their response above. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I did, yes, I was travelling most of the last two days so haven't had the time to dedicate to this. Thank you for the ping. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm going with a restore at this point, user appears to be committed to returning. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would be comfortable restoring the bit in this case. Policy does not require a new RfA unless we disbelieve NA’s stated intent to return to regular activity, and I haven’t seen any reason to do that. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:Just back from a long weekend, hope to read through the above and opine in a few hours. Feel free to close without me if you are ready to, but if you want an extra crat I'll pipe up soon. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::I find myself with 28bytes on this one. But I'll add that it is not really in our or anyone else's skillset to judge an intent to return. In other parts of my life, in real life, I have been involved in longterm voluntary activities where people have or have not returned to particular levels of activity. But the sort of information that explains such a change in hobbies is more appropriate to a chat over a beer in a pub rather than something we should encourage or expect people to publish over the internet. However we do now have over 200 edits since NaomiAmethyst's return to activity, and I'm happy to take that as both this being an editor who remembers our ways and has come back as well as telling us they are back. Would it be more sensible to change the policy to ask returning former admins to spend a week or two doing a couple of hundred edits before they ask for the tools back? Probably, but we on this noticeboard are here to apply policy not to set it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Policy only allows us to decide if we think there's reasonableness and intent. In my view, we have passed the bar on both. I think it would be better for returning admins to wait a little longer before requesting, but it's not a requirement, so I'd say restore. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Restore as a new RfA is unnecessary here and NaomiAmethyst has shown enough recent activity to quell any worries. In addition, it's easier than ever to remove admins, so if NA were to suddenly go off the rails, which I seriously doubt, the community would respond and address it. Acalamari 10:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Amakuru and WTT have summarised well my thoughts on the matter; a near-zero activity admin asking for the mop back on their first major day back to editing does not necessarily a signal a return to editing, and I have declined plenty of PERM requests on similar grounds. That being said, a week has passed and Naomi is still actively editing, but for me their willingness to wait a bit before asking does indicate that they plan on sticking around for a while. In other words, my concerns have been mitigated, and with a goodly number of my colleagues in agreement I will flip the bit shortly. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

:has there ever been a "crat chat" on a resysop discussion before? charlotte ^👸♥ 23:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. Giraffer (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I thank Barkeep49 for opening this subthread. This should essentially resolve my concerns. —Kusma (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• I don't have a 'crat hat at the moment, but will put my oar in. I believe that the community is not happy with largely inactive admins hanging onto the bits and not doing anything, getting out of practise and every so often making decisions well outside community norms. However, equally, the community has struggled drawing the line on where "largely inactive admin" sits. They have drawn a line - at least 100 edits in 3 years for removal, and has made edits in the past 2 years (plus 5 for admin actions) for return. Those are firm numbers that the 'crats can work with. We're getting hung up on {{xt|bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor}} - But that's got caveats built in - Reasonably convinced and intends to return. In other words - the community does not have firm lines for these, and it becomes discretion. Whilst I believe that means that the 'crats can fast stop a resysop, I don't think they should be doing this often - unless the community is a bit more clear about what they want - focussed on tangible numbers. Worm^TT(talk) 09:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not a crat, but if I were, my opinion would be aligned with Primefac. As WTT says, the community is not happy with largely inactive admins hanging onto the bits and not doing anything, then having the power to make admin decisions anywhere on the project. Non-admins have made it clear every time the perennial RFA discussions come up that this is an issue of concern, effectively giving us a two-tier system where those who passed RFA but dropped off from editing many years ago get a free pass, while newer very active administrator candidates with much more familiarity with modern norms get grilled to the nth degree and have a very high bar to surpass to earn the bit. With absolutely no disrespect to Naomi, who's done really good hard work in the past and probably will do so again going forward, I think several crats are taking the "intent to return" clause too literally here. The community wants those who are actually returning, not just those who make edits for a couple of weeks and then make an unenforceable pledge to be here longterm. As such, Primefac's suggestion of asking the candidate to continue working without the mop and then return here in a few months seems the outcome that matches the community's sentiment on this. If people really think the rules mandate resysopping here with no wriggle-room for crats to decide otherwise then we probably need to put it back to the community in an RFV to make sure that's what they really think.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Regarding former admins getting a "free pass" while new admin hopefuls "get grilled to the nth degree", the solution is simple. Stop grilling them to the nth degree. I've watched this project for coming up on twenty years. People used to pass RFA quite easily. But, seemingly, people don't want others to pass RFA unless they meet the same requirements they had to meet (e.g., Someone thinking, "I had to have 2,000 edits, so you can't get it with fewer or that would be unfair to me"). Resulting in each candidate needing to exceed the bar cleared by the previous candidate. Repeat for decades and the requirements exploded. It's a totally different conversation, than this thread, but I would just say again (and not to you, specifically, to be clear), stop grilling candidates to the nth degree. Useight (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::As we discussed in 2019, I think a more straightforward explanation is when a community is small, it can rely on its personal knowledge of given individuals to determine the level of trust to place in them. As it grows, everyone no longer knows each other, and metrics take on a greater significance. As the amount of personalized knowledge shrinks, editors try to compensate with rising numeric standards for their favourite metrics. As far as I know, requests for administrative privileges aren't failing due to opposes by admins, particularly since their participation is outnumbered by non-admins. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::I know that I used to participate in RfAs when I was familiar with the applicant. I can't remember how many years ago that last happened (i.e., me knowing anything about the applicant). Donald Albury 18:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• 'Reasonably convinced' is too wobbly. If what we mean is 'has clearly returned to editing', we need to say so, and provide some minimum for what that means. Valereee (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• : I believe the intention is to be wobbly, because hard number are hard (look how many RFCs it took just to put numbers on the inactivity rules). If the above request had come after a week (or maybe even just a couple of days) of editing, I likely would have flipped the bit 24h1m after the request was posted. I don't necessarily think anything needs changing, but hopefully this will be seen by other potentially-returning admins as an indicator of how the 'crats are currently evaluating requests. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't agree the intention was to be wobbly. I think the intention was to get something passed that could get passed, and what could get passed was something wobbly. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• All this, not for the first time. This situation is smilar to the Master Jay debácle, where an admin with an already-established lack of tool use made a flurry of edits, asked for the tools back, was resysopped amid some acrimony (admittedly more than we are seeing here; mainly due, I suspect, to Master Jay's unenthusiasm for answering questions, which s totally the opposite of NA's reasonableness here), and then proceeded to sink back into obscurity, despite rather grudging promises [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_Jay#c-Master_Jay-2019-02-20T04:00:00.000Z-Chris_troutman-2019-02-18T21:19:00.000Z assurances] of a return to activity, which never happened. "Judgment" means the ability to weigh options, not merely do something because there's no written rule against it. MJ was resysopped because there was nothing in policy saying he shouldn't be, and something similar is occurring here. That's not a judgment call, rather an exercise in whether something is to the letter rather than the spirit of the guideline. FTR, I think Cob/NA both was and is a more productive member of the community than MJ ever was or is, to clarify that that the similarity is in the context rather than the individuals. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :And that editor is still gaming the system. When it needed 1 edit a year, they averaged ~2. Now they're averaging 21. Our reminders to that editor really need to be customized to "Did you forget your hat again?" :D Valereee (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::They are also not engaged with the project as an administrator, their last logged actions were in October and March 2020. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::If there appears to be wide consensus that gaming is concurring here (potentially to the detriment of the project), could we not start a WP:RECALL petition ? Sohom (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Wow, you know what...that is exactly what should happen. The community can decide what they think about this kind of thing. Valereee (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::We should at least attempt to discuss it with them on their talk page before jumping to recall, but if that doesn't result in them re-engaging with or resigning their adminship, then recall would be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I've started it. Someone should definitely check my work, though, as it hasn't shown up here so I probably screwed up the transclusion. :D Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Sorry, Thryduulf. I didn't see that before I started it. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{u|Valereee}}, I'm not suggesting that {{u|Master Jay}} should be an administrator at this time, but starting a recall petition seems like overkill and this seems a bit hasty when there's no immediate need. If there's a possibility to hold off and have a discussion with Master Jay first, that would be a better approach. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::In 2019, when they requested their tools back, there was a LOOOOOOONG discussion, with dozens of questions to them, none of which they responded to directly and in the entire discussion they contributed only this: "I have read through all your comments. I have meant no harm or foul in procedurally requesting this resysop due to inactivity. I plan on participating again earnestly." That was 2019. Before which they were doing an edit or two a year. Upon discovering then that it required 20, that's what they've been doing. I get that you want to respect them, but I kind of feel like they've been disrespecting us. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I would have preferred for Master Jay to have a final opportunity to take responsibility and resolve this without the need for a recall. In any case, I've asked Master Jay to consider resigning. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bs,

Cyclonebiski [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1282065442 resigned his bit] at ANI. They were advised to come here to make this process formal but it appears that they just left after making their post. I thought I'd alert you all but I'm not sure if this resignation is valid when communicated by a third party. But I'll let you bureaucrats figure that out. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} bibliomaniac15 05:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well, that went smoother than expected! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I hereby declare my resignation on April 16, 2025. Thank you.

{{rfplinks|Master Jay}} Master Jay (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Do you plan to use the sysop permission between now and April 16? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|0xDeadbeef}} Considering their last use of the admin bit was *checks notes* nearly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=Master_Jay&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist five years ago], I think it'll be OK ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:You've almost got to admire this level of devotion to the letter over the spirit. Almost. -- asilvering (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:I wanted to be signature #25 on their recall petition ... just for irony points, but unfortunately I had to be away from the computer by then. The fact that I'm even commenting on this request shows how distasteful I find their behaviour. I probably should've just signed the petition when I had a chance (it was on 23 sigs when I noticed it) ... honestly, I'd very rarely feel the urge to do such a thing otherwise. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{done}} effective April 16, 2025. Your administrator rights will automatically expire at that time. Noting for the record that this was in response to the successful conclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay, so a new RfA or administrator election would be required in order for the administrative rights to be restored. 28bytes (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'm disappointed that an individual would so blatantly appear to abuse the "leeway" offered as part of the process, and all I can think of is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I fully accept your argument for wanting / having tools @Master Jay, I don't believe you're abusing them - but I also believe that the community has made its opinion about historical admins clear, and well, I'm disappointed. Worm^TT(talk) 11:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note that the date selected is the 19th anniversary of Mister Jay's RFA, which is why I assume this date was chosen. BugGhost 🦗👻 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:: No, it was chosen because it's 30 days from the recall petition closing, which is the last day that the admin can start a re-RfA (or resign). Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::30 days after the petition closed would be the 17th, not the 16th. BugGhost 🦗👻 13:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::(I'll concede that this may just be a timezone difference thing though, so happy to concede this as it's not really an important detail in the grand scheme of things) BugGhost 🦗👻 13:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:WP:ADMINRECALL says {{tq|The subject is then required to make a re-request for adminship or stand as a candidate in an administrator election if they want to remain an admin... An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition.... The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion.}} The thirty days is to open an RRfA, which they're not going to do. It's not to hold onto the tools just a little longer and dot the i that the recall reasoning presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::If Master Jay does not intend to open an RRfA, then I'm not seeing a very valid reason for delaying the resignation/desysop. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::They have decided to make an exit. Let's not sink to pettiness arguing about the exact timing. It's not like they've actually committed any abuses of the position. Let's just have a little class, thank them for their service, and move on. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::This is fair enough. "Stay classy, BN" Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::As a mere member of the peanut gallery, I concur :) More importantly, if any crat disagrees with 28bytes's action here I'm sure they will let us know. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::What Roy said, anything else is not needed. Things have been done, life goes on. --qedk (t 愛 c) 03:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::There is a reason fired workers are locked out of company systems immediately. That is not to say I expect something to happen here, or that specific action is needed now given 28bytes has already responded to this request, but absent a clear reason (like needing tools for a specific event or task with a specified time frame) it's probably best to err on not having oddly-delayed tool expirations. CMD (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{small|The old firm made me serve out my 30 days' notice period. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::::[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/12/ballet-dancer-could-reskill-with-job-in-cyber-security-suggests-uk-government-ad Your next job could be in cyber] CMD (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{small|and some has 90 days}} – robertsky (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Fired and resigned and retired are not the same thing. I've heard that in the US, or in many US owned companies it is normal to close people's accounts immediately the decision has been made to lose them. I assume this is part of the US philosophy of disrespecting those leaving an organisation. But this is a global site, and a volunteer community, and precautions that make sense if you are making people redundant under US 'hire and fire' employment laws are not universal or particularly relevant among volunteers. ϢereSpielChequers 10:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: If Master Jay was going to do something malicious during the month he could have just not resigned ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Is there a reason not to assume good faith? Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't know how "That is not to say I expect something to happen here" could be clearer? CMD (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Anything "bad" that is done to the Wiki can be undone in a minute or two. This is a feature. Let's assume good faith here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. {{admin|Orderinchaos}}
2. : Last logged admin action: February 2021

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

:(none)

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as an observation, above the last logged admin action is listed for each editor but in the main list (Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2025) it is the last log entry of any kind that is noted (in Orderinchaos' case the creation of a redirect in March 2024). It is the latter that is relevant to desyopping and the former that is relevant to resysopping, so there are clear reasons for noting both I'm just wondering why one there and the other here? Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

: Because the main list is maintained by a bot and this list is done by a human, and "last logged admin action" is hard to bot as what is and is not an admin action isn't perfectly defined. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:In general, when the last clearly obvious admin action is recent, noting here makes things easier when discussing potential restoration requests that are obviously within limits. Should an actual request come in, any relevant past contribution can be reviewed. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{rfplinks|EranBot}}

User:EranBot has been replaced by User:CopyPatrolBot and thus no longer needs to be in the "copyright violation bot" user group. Please feel free to remove it. Thanks to @1AmNobody24 for alerting me to this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} copyviobot flag removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Where is it appropriate to raise concerns about the actions of administrators? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Administrative action review. See its archives for examples. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sometimes WP:AN or WP:ANI are also appropriate places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:But before anywhere else, on the admin in question's talk page, both as a courtesy and to attempt to resolve the problem without any wider dispute resolution. Acalamari 06:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE has advice for handling conduct disputes with any editor, including admins, and has a subsection on admins with additional information. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions is a useful resource for this (although not brilliantly named). Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LaundryPizza03

I've kind of "paused" it, for reasons I expand on in my note there. There is obviously a disconnect here - LP03 edited earlier today, but not the RFA, and things are probably to go even more pear-shaped if this just continues. I wanted to make you guys aware I'm pseudo-cratting, in case you want to yell at me, and (more) to encourage one of you to just shut it down as unsuccessful. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:So the candidate is active, and this isn't WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW? So what is the reason this candidate shouldn't be allowed to have their RFA running? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::From reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year - the general outcome for poorly performing RFA's is that the candidate withdraws. There is a 2020 precedent for "early closure", but that had the element of the candidate being consistently offline as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::They don't appear to have revisited the RfA since it started heading south, which has caused more opposes. They should have an opportunity to confirm that they want to proceed before events get ahead of them. If they indicate that they want to proceed then it should if course be reopened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That how the candidate behaves while they have an RFA open is having an effect on their request is to be expected. Similarly, their decision to withdraw or not could influence future such requests. This "pausing" may be disruptive to the rest of the community should this request be resumed. Do we start a new full review period (as some editors may have only been available during the pause)? Does the review period get extended? Is there just lost time? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with HJ Mitchell. I'll also add that this seems like a reasonable (if bold!) use of WP:IAR based on the unusual circumstances. We can always convert this to an early closure later. {{u|Floquenbeam}} has already reached out to LaundryPizza03 so let's give them a chance to respond. I'd also understand if it takes a bit of time because reengaging in this type of situation can be daunting. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Personally, I think users should never be forced to withdraw their applications. If you run, you have the rights to have that run to completion.

:I don't see a particularly strong reason to go against this. It would be nice if the user was to state they wish to continue, but they are clearly active and are aware that the RfA is in progress. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't about taking away anyone's rights. The pause seems to have been intended to be a proactive step to prevent a situation from escalating further, allowing the candidate a chance to reengage thoughtfully, or at least explain what happened. Pausing the RFA, in this case, helped prevent unnecessary disruption. WP:NOTBURO applies here too. We should be more concerned about retaining and helping a member of the community than enforcing the letter of the law so they can be subjected to... whatever you would call what was happening today. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I commented about this here, and would welcome discussion about possibly standardising this act of kindness for bureaucrat action. - jc37 20:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It does seem that this request is approaching a snow situation, of the requesters own doing. But that can just be called out for what it is. I'd certainly consider other options if the requester was suddenly inactive (perhaps a real life emergency came up) - but I don't think we need to codify something like that. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::If the candidate stopped editing for 24 hours without any notice, we would pause an arbcom case (and have, if I remember correctly), so why shouldn't we do that for RfA? Closing seems like overkill, when we don't know (yet) what's going on. And if the editor returns and re-transcludes the RfA, no harm, no foul. And if they don't within the 7 days, then just close it as abandoned, and life goes on. - jc37 20:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This candidate was active ~12 hours ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, but until then, this could have been paused. And we still don't know what may have been going on. If we had a formal process to pause, then when they returned they now had the choice to let it go or to re-open. I doubt that it would look like it does now, if it had been paused at the 24 hour mark.

::::All that aside, I was thinking in general, not necessarily about this specific situation, though this situation does shine a light on it. - jc37 20:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fwiw, as a candidate, you don't really have anything other to do than to answer the questions (and worry constantly in my case).

:::::I don't know why we'd pause it because the candidate didn't visit the site in one day. As there's no deadline on answering questions (or indeed, any requirement to do so at all), even a successful RfA can go on without the candidate for a few days. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: I'd like to agree with you, however, there were plenty of opposes which apparently disagree. So I'm trying to look at what the current situation "is", rather than what we might wish it were. - jc37 21:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Crats are under no obligation to give those weight. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yes and no. Our policies are based upon common practice and consensus. so it's not a bad idea as an initial step, to find out what the community's expectations are and address them. Even if they are a minority's mistaken expectations, it's important to know that too. We tend to want to help and guide, rather than merely policing the area, blindly following written rules. And sometimes those "rules" are unwritten - jc37 02:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of editors cannot turn something the community has said is optional (on more than one occasion) into something that is required. I would certainly support efforts to clarify if that consensus still holds, but doing so in the middle of a specific RfA does not follow policy, practice, or consensus in my experience and view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::First, WP:IAR exists for a reason.

::::::::::Second, that aside, what I was saying is that we should identify these things as a start of a discussion, not the end of it. If you read what I wrote above, I was talking about the possibility of creating a formal process. - jc37 04:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I am largely away, as I have been for the last couple of days and indeed multiple comments have come in as I've tried to write this comment. So I'm in no position to examine past practice. On a basic level I agree with Xaos that this pausing is not a good state for this RfA. I also agree with Floq that I'm not sure this RfA should remain open. It has nothing to do with not answering questions - they are labeled optional and that reflects community consensus about them - or activity of the candidate and is purely about the performance. I think this pause is not a stable state and thus not an appropriate invocation of IAR. But also I am not sure it should remain open given either (this is where I'd need to examine past practice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::trying to catch up to the comments, but since I read the last one first: this is certainly not intended to be a stable state. It's intended to be a "pause", until either (a) LP03 states that they want this open (and then someone unpauses), or (b) someone (IMHO preferably a crat) closes this (and then replaces the pause with a close). Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I meant I don't think it's stable at this moment and not just on waiting for the two possible next states you've identified; put more clearly I'd supoort the pause being reversed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Trying to reply to most comments above in one reply; please let me know if there's something I don't address. My main thought process is, there is some kind of serious disconnect here, beyond a mere miscommunication. If this was a noob trying to run an RFA way too early, and just didn't know what was going on, we'd snow close it. If it was an experienced editor who saw that things were going poorly, they'd withdraw (or, alternately, state that they want it to stay open, maybe to get more feedback or something). There has literally never been a case of an experienced editor, who very well could maybe have passed if this was handled differently, just never responding to anything in the RFA at all, nor to messages on their talk page; logging in a half a day later, editing a few pages that have nothing to do with the RFA, and then logging off while ignoring the RFA, and still ignoring the messages on their talk page. So no, it's not just that they haven't logged in since it was opened. If you're a crat, or anyone really, who thinks this should be re-opened, go for it (maybe check the comments on the RFA talk page and my talk page). If you're a crat, or anyone really, who thinks this should be snow-closed, then go for it (I only avoided it because in my experience this gets shouted down if done by non-crats in a situation that isn't 1/34/1). But something pretty weird is happening here, that I have never seen before, and saying "this isn't what we usually do" isn't really useful information. I'm trying to save us from losing an editor because they feel poorly treated, while also not letting a guaranteed unsuccessful RFA fester and cause more bad feelings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I typed all that in a rush, I meant to add: the other reason I "paused" it is because I generally don't think it's clear whether leaving it alone is better, or snow closing it is better, so allowing the candidate to come back and say "I didn't realize how it worked, I've got answers to all the questions" is still a possibility. It keeps the most options open. If it does reopen, the crats can decide how to handle extending the clock, that's a relatively easy decision. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I also don't want to lose an editor but I'm 100% unconvinced this novel action is the way to not lose that editor; not the least because now we're having this conversation at a somewhat prominent venue. I'm not convinced we should have crats and I'm incredibly sympathetic to the situation where the crats are so hidebound that admins feel the need to invoke IAR. Thats what I read the messages, minus one, on your talk page as being about rather than plaudits for deciding to invent a new RfA mechanism that has now left the candidate confused about how to proceed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :In hindsight, you are correct that I ran too early, particularly concerning the lack of understanding regarding Question 2 and expectations of participation. I've always felt averse to checking upon responses to dubious actions of myself. I would particularly need help on Question 2. Where should I post answers to questions raised in the RfA? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::If you intend to carry on with the RFA, then I'll unpause it, and you would answer the questions in the RFA iteself, under each question. Where the "A" is. That's what you want to do? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@LaundryPizza03 you wish to continue the rfa? Based on this I'm assuming the answer is yes and so I'm going to do my best on mobile to reopen your rfa so you can answer there. But if you've decided you ran too early we can also close this as withdrawn and you can work on the answers for a future rfa. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Hi {{u|LaundryPizza03}}. You might want to consider withdrawing your RFA for the time being. That will give you time to participate in some RFAs in the coming months to get more familiar with how the process works and what people expect. Based on the comments, it also seems like there might be some "resume building" areas. Another option would be signing up for the next administrator election. I'd also encourage you to seek out one or two mentors who have recently succeeded at whichever process you decide to pursue in the future. If you do decide to continue with this RFA, please respond in depth to the questions and be ready for a bit of an WP:UPHILLBATTLE. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I echo this. Withdrawing may be the best option since at this point, getting into the "crat chat" threshold is dependent on 1) the answers being sufficient and 2) the content being compelling enough for some of "opposes" to change their stance (which is never guaranteed since there's no guarantee for editors to be required to reexamine their comments.) The only way I can see my 2nd point being invalid is if like 100-ish new participants comment in the RfA as "support" without additional "oppose" votes, and the odds of that are very low. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::While this does nothing to undermine the advice offered, I will point out that there are two ways to get to crat chat: an influx of new supports or opposes being struck (or perhaps even changed to support). We don't normally see large changes in that direction but we also don't normally have so many opposes based on something addressable at RfA. I hope @LaundryPizza03 considers this when deciding whether to answer the questions or to withdraw (and of course answering the questions doesn't stop a later withdrawal or SNOW close). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::(edit conflict) ...Yeah, because I swear I just said that, but in different wording. 😀 Anyways, me signing off BN since I ain't a bureaucrat. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Looking at unsuccessful RfAs as far back as 2017, RfAs below 50% were allowed to continue until either the 7 days ran out or a candidate withdrew, unless it was closed very early (much earlier than this) as a NOTNOW or SNOW. I have personal feelings about the wisdom of this (which I noted above). As a crat I enact the will of the community and I am not aware of anything that would suggest the community wants a change from past practice. I do have thoughts about the role of crats in RfAs and especially RfAs like this but I think that discussion is better outside the middle of an RfA. So I reluctantly find myself supporting the skepticism shown by my colleagues Xaosflux and Lee Vilenski above about closing this RfA at this time. However, I do think if an RfA is well attended and is well into the 30s, we have precedent to close regardless of the time open. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• (non-crat comment) Generally agreed with what Lee said. The fact of the matter is that RfA conventions are primarily procedural. I don't necessarily think it was a bad usage of IAR, but probably imperfect. --qedk (t 愛 c) 01:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Rfplinks|Tinucherian}}

In accordance with this motion please desysop Tinucherian. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{resolved|The CC was closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I have opened up a 'crat chat for EggRoll97, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EggRoll97 2/Bureaucrat chat. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

After finding my first RfA close fiddly I have now spent time (as seems to be the case with all my code work these days too much time) with a script to close RfAs. It can theoretically do RfBs also but I haven't done any testing of that. I've done as much testing as I can think of but I'm sure there are bugs. But I think it will successfully guide crats (or admins for SNOW/NOTNOW) through the steps. I've tried to make it simple to use (either doing it with a button press or with a copy followed by a paste of the code). There is one action where I haven't been able to get it completely working (the chronological table updates) and this is prominently noted. The script can be found at User:Barkeep49/rfxCloser.js. Please let me know any thoughts or bugs you find. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Very cool. Looks like we'll have a few chances to test it out in the next week. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I discovered an issue, someone pointed out the recent RfX table didn't get updated (because it wasn't in the instructions which I changed), and Stephen on my user page pointed out a problem I hadn't seen in my testing. I hope to fix all these by the time the next RfA ends. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This is terrific. I think we always put up with all the legwork because ... well, 'bureaucrats', but I really appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

When you're happy it's working properly, {{u|Barkeep49}}, I suggest that Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions_and_RfX_closures is updated to reference it. I would also suggest we keep the directions for the manual version somewhere (and not just in the diffs), in case one day your bot fails for some reason. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The idea of adding instructions for the script to that page makes sense so that crats have equal choice here. I am definitely not really happy with it at the moment, but also have had so little time for anything that's not U4C at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposal to create an Election Administrator user group, located at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal. The Election Administrator user group would have the ability to create and edit local (English Wikipedia) SecurePolls. English Wikipedia setting up its own SecurePolls is a new feature (normally SecurePolls are set up by Wikimedia Trust & Safety on votewiki) that would be used in administrator elections.

If implemented, this will affect CheckUsers because they will receive the ability to view private data in the SecurePoll extension, and this will affect Bureaucrats because they will be involved in the process of adding and removing Election Administrators. Please take a look at the proposal, and if you have feedback, feel free to leave comments on the talk page. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:What impact will this have on Arbcom elections, which can now also have local election admins? Risker (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I want to think this proposal through with my crat hat on. But @Risker, as a former Arbcom electcom member as long as consensus remains to have Stewards and explicitly not enwiki CUs do the scrutineering for ArbCom elections, I do not think those elections should be setup locally and should instead continue through the current votewiki/securepoll process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Scrutineers are not election administrators; they are two different roles. The election administrators set up the (SecurePoll) election, but also can review votes. Scrutineers do not do that. Risker (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I misread the impact of giving securepoll-view-voter-pii; my concern was that CUs would get PII that they otherwise would not be eligible to get if we held arbcom elections locally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Agreed, but this question should probably get added to the annual election RfC. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Putting on my software engineer hat, I'd prefer to see the first locally-hosted election be something less critical than ACE. On the off chance that something unexpected happens, it would be better that it happens to AELECT. Once we've run a full AELECT through the new system with no problems, that's the time to try running ACE on it. RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{small|(non-crat comment)}} I argue that the technical implementation should come first as NL rightly says and we can sort out details in a follow-up RfC. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:We've made some changes and I think the current version is ready for final sign off. Please feel free to give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal#Survey %2F Motion to close. Note that after recent changes, the bureaucrats are no longer directly involved in the process of granting the "election clerk" user group. The proposal is now for administrators to grant the election clerk user group, and may only grant the user group to other administrators. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

;Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. {{admin|Johan Elisson}}
2. : Last logged admin action: July 2022
3. {{admin|DDima}}
4. : Last logged admin action: April 2023

;Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. {{admin|Spangineer}}
2. : Last logged admin action: May 2017
3. {{admin|Huon}}
4. : Last logged admin action: March 2021

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Xaosflux, I just realized that you've been using a November 2023 link in your reason for desysop comments. Useight (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the note, victim of browser-side autocomplete, no real way to fix that this time, will watch for it next month. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't used any of the admin tools in yonks and don't currently have a need for them. Could a passing 'crat remove the bit for me please? Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done-t}} - I gave you rollbacker but please let us know if you'd like any thing else. Beyond that while I don't think we've ever interacted I want to take this moment to thank you for everything you've done for the project and for the impact you've had on countless Wikipedians, including me. During my early forays into Wikipedia in the 2000s you were someone who I came to really respect. And when I became an arbitrator you were one of my models and then I got to see the impact that the work you had done still had on the committee and the project. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I remember the day Roger and I met to talk about my first Arb case. Had way more of a clue than I did at that point and to this day has helped drive my style. Hope you are well {{ping|Roger Davies}} -- Amanda (she/her) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks Roger for ever being a generous friend to the project. I hope you stay in touch with the community. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

hello - the circumstances in which I would meaningfully use my admin tools are increasingly tenuous, so I don't really need them - who knows I might be back to editing properly some day, but if that day comes I can always ask for the bit back. So please deadmin me when you have a moment. Many thanks, The Land (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}}. 28bytes (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks Chris for your work all these years, it is a pity you do not have time anymore. Hope you will be back sometime. Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks 28bytes, and thanks Yaroslav! Life has moved on. Who knows, I may be back someday :) The Land (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)