Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

RfA for Dane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could I please draw the attention of 'crafts to this comment about offline pressure being applied to !voters who are changing their position? I have asked for further details that may or may not be forthcoming, but this under-the-counter pressure is no way to progress an RfA, and brings the whole system under question. It raises the question of whether the candidate is that bad that they need muscle men putting outside pressure to press for the "right" result? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've put my part of the story up at the RfA page. If the appropriate authority (ex. Bureaucrats) requests chat logs about the conversation, I can present those. — Gestrid (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For the 'crats, I will repeat what I said at the RfA, I do not think that Gestrid has done anything wrong, but others seems to be going to considerable lengths (or perhaps that should be depths) to force this through, and pressure and events like this drag down the integrity of the process. – The Bounder (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with The Bounder here, and I applaud Gestrid for having the bollocks to speak up and call out vote rigging where he/she sees it. Cassianto^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

To repost what I wrote there: You're both blowing this out of proportion. I just looked back over my chat logs. There was general discussion of this RfA; at no point did anyone ask or imply that anyone else should change their vote. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you know what was being implied. Why would someone ask another person, who at that point was indecisive, to revisit another editor's comment before reposting again? And while we're here, what does my block log have to do with this RfA? Is it fair that my block log forms part of someone's rationale for supporting this candidate? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will repeat what I wrote there: publish the full text, identifying who was who. If people want to be open about their discussions, they should be honest enough to say what needs to be said on wiki, not in the smoky backrooms of an IRC channel. If you want people to trust admins, and the admin election process, then stop backroom shinnanagans by people who are supposed to know better. – The Bounder (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

One could equally question the fact that one of the editors complaining here about canvassing was pinged to the RfA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No I wasn't, as explained elsewhere. You really must keep up as you're making yourself look really rather stupid. Cassianto^Talk 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll happily respond to you once you read and understand WP:CIVIL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No thanks. I'd sooner stick my head in a blender. Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that you would rather stick your head in a blender than not violate a Wikipedia policy? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• As a user who was present during the 'situation' on IRC, I can confirm that the user in question never asked Gestrid to change their opinion. They stated their own beliefs of the situation, to which Gestrid responded by saying that they will review the circumstances. However, from the wording, I get a strong impression that Gestrid had desired to make a more thorough review of the situation before reading the other's comments. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of admin flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove my admin rights effective immediately. I am disengaging from this project. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll do that for you, reluctantly, but would just like to check you really want to. We need good administrators and I've always thought of you as one of our best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I know full well what has brought this on, but can I urge you to sleep on it? You're one of the better admins, and resigning won't really help the project. There have been far too many resignations of people I respect and trust over the last six months, and at some point we really need to sit down and sort this out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to write here but in the spirit of WP:IAR etc- Laser brain please PLEASE don't do this- it's not worth it- and you leaving is hardly going to help the rest of us. Come on mate. Don't let the buggers get you down, as the feller said. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• +1 You have been extremely helpful to me (and to many, many others) at FAC, and to lose your balance and judgement would be a loss to us all. I hope a couple of beers and a good night's sleep will help you change your mind. - The Bounder (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems I got logged out before.

Please desysop me for now, I am feeling burned out and I had not noticed, which is bad. Thoughtful people have made comments that indicate I need time off the abuse watch. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resysop request Lord Voldemort.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lord Voldemort (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Trying to get back into the editing realm. I'd like to be resysopped, and understand there will be a wait until people can chime in. Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really relevant to your entitlement to regain your tools, but why wouldn't you want to edit for a while before asking to be resysopped? You haven't done any serious editing since July 2006.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Another example of why we need a better inactivity policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you're absolutely right. Nevermind this re-sysop request. I'll just fade back into the ether and re-request once I've been back active a bit more. I suppose this can be closed now. Thank you anyway. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn by requester. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restore admin

I've unretired, and hereby request restoration of my bit. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 07:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back Dlohcierekim, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on this type of request. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A very welcomed return to the admin corps. Good to see you with a mop again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. It's good to be back. Dlohcierekim 17:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And  Done, with great happiness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Dlohcierekim 09:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove admin

Hello, because of issues with my health, I've decided I want to put a little distance between myself and the trolls for right now. Hopefully, I'll be back in a few months, but now is a good time to take a break from the mop. Please remove my +sysop. If it isn't a problem, I would like to retain my current EFM and add templateeditor and rollback. Thank you. Dragons flight (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service, hope you find your break restful. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Damn! sorry to see that. Best wishes. Dlohcierekim 08:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#May 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

1. ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Yandman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Bjarki S (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. OldakQuill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Shyam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resysop request (Doug Bell)

Doug Bell (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I'm not very active, but I'm still a good citizen. I'd appreciate having my admin rights restored. My account has never been compromised. —Doug Bell 17:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) According to Special:Log/Doug Bell, you last used your sysop tools on April 4, 2007 (over 10 years ago). While there is no procedural reason to deny this request, do you really need the admin tools? --Rschen7754 17:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The primary admin tool I'd like restored is the ability to view deleted pages. Unless I become active again doing admin things, I don't see a requirement for the other tools. However, I'm not sure I see a need to remove my access to the tools... —Doug Bell 02:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot has changed over the last 10 years: RevDel, semi-protection/extendedconfirmed/template editors, BLP, verifiability, Checkuser blocks, semi-protection, 2-factor authentication, global accounts... It would be like a police officer from 1850 trying to do the job today. They may have been well-qualified then, but not today. Also, viewing deleted content is another reason why to remove the privileges from mostly inactive accounts - if the account were to be hacked, it is a security concern due to the potential leak of data. Would your use of deleted content be improving the encyclopedia, or be merely to satisfy an intellectual curiosity? --Rschen7754 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I always try to push back on this meme when I see it: I actually did disappear for about eight years, during which most of that stuff was developed, and one of the single most surprising things about the "modern" Wikipedia is how insistent everyone is that everything has changed so much. It's like the opposite of the lobster-in-a-pot problem. Speaking from experience, there is actually surprisingly little that has changed about the core of how the project works. Anyone who did any significant work after the early post-Seigenthaler evolution of BLP should be well-placed to catch up very quickly. (Actually, your list skipped two things that are a lot more salient on a day-to-day-experience basis: rollback was unbundled, and pinging is a thing now.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Incredible how much has changed over the past ten years. And if this were a user who hadn't been involved with this project for ten years, you'd be absolutely correct in questioning whether or not they're qualified to use the tools today. Except Doug hasn't been inactive for ten years. Ten years is an arbitrary number you came up with from his last administrative action. That tells you one thing: the last time he performed an admin action that appears in the log. It doesn't tell you the last time he looked at a deleted article. The last time he visited AN or AN/I, or looked at new tools/policies or guidelines. The last time he edited an article or contacted someone on their talk page. Or, really, anything else. Everything else is an inference you're making based on assumptions. If the community trusted him to show restraint and learn about things he may not know about back when he got the bit originally, I see little that has changed since then to suggest he wouldn't use the same care today. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been here for well over 10 years, and I'd say the period is more notable for the things that need to be changed but haven't been. I can't think of anything significant that's changed that any intelligent person can't pick up relatively quickly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Your first edit in 1.5 years was to return and ask for the admin rights. Is there an admin or crat that you know who could verify that you are indeed you? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux is the only bureaucrat name I recognize, and we had minimal contact when I was last active as an admin, so I doubt that's of any use. I guess I don't know how to prove I'm me, even if I knew a current bureaucrat. I guess you can either accept that it's me or not. —Doug Bell 02:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. a short while back there was a concern about imposters stealing stale admin accounts. You went inactive right after I got started. Dlohcierekim 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a current admin - maybe someone you have previously exchanged email with? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Committed identity or verification of your previously known real-life identity would likely also work (though I guess "Doug Bell" might be a pseudonym). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Doug Bell" is my real name. Coincidently, there's a short bio for me, Doug Bell, on Wikipedia itself. —Doug Bell 17:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if anyone has really mentioned this, but Doug has only been desysopped since December of 2016, a mere five months. It's not like he hasn't been admin this whole time since his last action. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think we should probably just give Doug back his admin bit, unless there's a reasonable reason not to assume good faith here. Andrevan@ 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done As no actionable concerns have been raised, the bit has been twiddled. Welcome back Doug Bell, and may you become more active. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin desysop of User_talk:😂

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please note that User:😂 has requested a desysop here. As this avoids the normal attention of the 'Crats here, I am notifying you for your tracking records. Should this be considered resigning under a cloud? I think so for the purposes of a future resysop.--v/r - TP 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, totally a cloud! 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Point of order. I think not 'acceptable for an administrator' is rather missing the point. It could be argued that it is not acceptable for an editor. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Agreed, thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, since the meta request was declined, I'm formally requesting it here now. Please revoke my adminship with extreme prejudice against ever requesting it again. 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Do wish you'd reconsider. You don't know how badly you'll miss the old mop till you no longer have it.16:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Nah, who needs it? 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, the discussion looks like it might be turning - at least wait to see how it ends up? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose having drama spill over onto WP:BN. I don't suppose User:crying smiley would be willing to step back from the edge of the cliff for a little while? Until, say, the RFC/N thread actually concludes? If not, then (a) desysop immediately because of this request, but (b) there is no cloud, and the user can request re-instatement at any time if either (i) it is decided the name is OK, or (ii) they change their name, or (iii) some other solution is suggested by someone when everyone has had a chance to think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I personally don't care about the username. But the quickness it went from "Give me what I want or I'm quitting" makes me happy to show them the door.--v/r - TP 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree, I've supported their username at WP:RFCN but this request is ridiculously pointy behaviour for any user, let alone an administrator. Either the username is acceptable or it is not; being an administrator has nothing to do with it, you won't get to keep an inappropriate username because you resigned the bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
      • This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3. --Rschen7754 18:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• There's a clear and conspicuous request for a desysop "with prejudice". They've been asked several times if they wish to reconsider. I say just remove the bit and walk away, that's the best way to avoid the drama, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reopening

The RFCN discussion is closed as "allow", so per the above by Nihonjoe I am reopening this, mainly based on this very specific request. Pinging 😂 for comment and thoughts. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As a note, I have no thoughts regarding 😂 and their mop, I am just putting the offer for voluntary desysopping back on the table now that the discussion that started this whole thing has been closed. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Decline as 😂 made that comment before the RFCN closed and may have incorrectly assumed it would go against them. I'd obviously review my position if they posted a follow-up request. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not totally clear on whether bureaucrats have discretion to decline to desysop someone who requests it, regardless of circumstances. The relevant RfC linked from WP:Bureaucrats closed with consensus that bureaucrats should desysop upon request. Further, it seems like a terrible idea to refuse a voluntary desysop when the alternative (if the editor is frustrated and really wants sysop removed) is to go on a spree of bad actions until there is no choice but to remove it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a "refuse to desysop" so much as a "wait to make sure that this is still what the user wants, since the circumstances have significantly changed since the request was made". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And, well, it won't be under a cloud any more, if it ever was. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• • • • What WritKeeper said. I'll desysop on request, if/when 😂 clarifies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: For the record, if 😂 ends up being desysopped, I would not consider it under a cloud. The reason for this is that it wasn't removed due to some sort of "conduct unbecoming" on the part of 😂. Rather, it was due to people getting concerned his Unicode username was hard to type, and him getting upset that people were harassing him over it. If there were additional issues, I didn't see them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The request was made in response to a suggested sentiment that my username was conduct unbecoming of an administrator (as I am supposed to lead by example). Considering the username has been viewed acceptable, it appears that issue is now moot. This whole thing was a rather silly exercise I think, and I think it is best to just let it end. Withdrawing my request for now. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY ^[u+1F602] 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Closed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

invalid RFA page name

I believe Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/pvmoutside should be moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pvmoutside. Requesting permission/assistance. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to already be done. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: no, It is still there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

close?

• Speaking of that RFA, it is in mercy rule territory already, it seems highly unlikely to pass. Perhaps an early close is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  The user/nominator may always withdraw. Our precedent as I recall has generally been to allow the RFA to continue when it has gotten this far, as opposed to a WP:SNOW close that goes south early. The user may want to know how close he or she is to passing. Andrevan@ 23:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  At the current level of support (46% as of this writing), it wouldn't be impossible - albeit unlikely - for the RfA to suddenly swing the other way and creep up to the discretionary range. Unlike a SNOW close, where it's obvious it's not going to pass, there's enough support here that a comeback could happen, thus a SNOW close isn't appropriate in this circumstance. As Andrevan has said, if the user wishes to withdraw, they can do so. Acalamari 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought (at least in the past) RFAs could be closed early if they were obviously going to fail. I thought this because it happened at my first RFA but that was a long time ago and it was only closed one day early. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the first oppose on your first RFA was pretty substantial. I probably would have let your RFA run its course, but it wasn't going to pass. Andrevan@ 00:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jondel desysop request

Please see Special:Diff/778572891. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

For our archives, here is the final state of the case request that was declined Special:PermaLink/778692113. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Bit please

Resolved

Dennis Brown (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I don't expect to use it much, but it may be handy to have back after the standard 24 hour wait. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a 'crat but can I heartily endorse this? Too late, I heartily endorse this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. Here's the relevant diff for ease of access. Mkdw ^talk 19:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• I see no issues which would prevent this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, welcome back. –xeno^talk 22:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bit removal

I've not been around for a while and I don't expect this is likely to change. I've always felt that adminship is no big deal, there seems no point to leave it there. Could someone flip the switch for me please. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service, hope to keep seeing you around! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 is sad :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, Hope to see you around :) Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 03:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto³. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto⁴ --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Transferring admin access to new account

Resolved

 – Rights were transferred from User:Khaosworks to User:Khaosworks101. –xeno^talk 19:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi all - through my own fault, I have lost the 2FA authenticator token and scratch codes I set up for this account, which means when the current login cookie expires I will lose access to User:Khaosworks. I have created a new account, User:Khaosworks101 and would like to request that my admin access be transferred from this account to the new one. I have also discussed this on the administrator noticeboard at [1] and this is based on suggestions of the good people there. Do let me know what else I might need to do to facilitate this. Thanks! -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with this. Want it done now-ish? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd wait 24 hours, just because my spidey senses are tingling. Basically, this trips my "If I saw an admin account left unattended in a public library, and wanted control of it How would I do it?" filter. I don't think there is a problem, and I'll happily strike this when it's shown I'm missing something though. Non-crat, non-admin back row of the peanut gallery observation Tazerdadog (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I have zero problem with waiting and believe me, I've been thinking about how to prove my identity. Just let me know when it's done! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please consider raising a Phabricator ticket to have 2FA removed from the account, before taking drastic action. Compare with Phab:T164682. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the better solution. If it does not work, his previous userpage contains a ton of personal information that might be useful to verify that the same user is in control of both accounts. Regards SoWhy 09:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Phabricator ticket only worked because a steward was standing next to the user in question vouching for his veracity. My understanding is that khaosworks is in the catch-22 of needing his 2FA information in order to turn off 2FA (Otherwise 2FA would be quite worthless, as it could be turned off at will with just a password) The parallel discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard has further discussion on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly right - I don't have the token or the scratch codes so I can't turn off 2FA. I sent an email to [email protected] asking for help and essentially got the answer that there's nothing to be done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a Phab ticket for your case (I've read through the ANI discussion). If your request is rejected, the explanation will be helpful for future 2FA users. In particular if a steward has to be "standing next to you" for it to be done, then I don't really understand why doing it during a confidential one to one Skype call would not be sufficiently secure.

By the way, if setting up a committed identity is all that is required, you can do that now in a few minutes of effort. So long as it's done before you lose your current login cookie, any steward should find it sufficient evidence that your account is yours; though frankly it would be slightly bizarre if that worked, as you can already say that you are you from your logged in account, and nobody has claimed your account is compromised. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Because organisations that use 2FA almost always already have the identity of the user on file. For resetting/removing 2FA its just a matter of confirming their identity with previously held information. Its no use having a 2FA user dial up a steward unless said steward can vouch for the user's identity *prior* to the event. Given the average wikipedians aversion to being identified or the WMF having their identity on file, its not feasible to have them put a process in to support the rare cases where 2FA has functioned as intended. Ideally anyone who enables 2FA would also be required to identify to the WMF so if they do lose their authenticator in some way, it can be reset without having to jump through a load of hoops. That is unlikely to happen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, however this can be solved if there were sufficient good will to do so (such as Khaosworks showing acceptable photoID and any other evidence to confirm identity, during a confidential Skype call with a willing volunteer steward). One of the reasons I'm recommending a record on Phabricator is that if the reason is "we don't want to because it's time consuming" rather than "we can't" or "because, security", then this should be better defined and explained up front in the 2FA process. Keep in mind that this is not a case of a potentially compromised account, with the original user still logged in, this should be a trivial reset request. --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless their identity is on file somewhere, it would not be confirming the identity of the account owener. It would just be confirming the identity of the person who is currently in control. Which is why 2FA is set up as it is. Like I said, this would not be an issue with any organisation that already has an account holders personal information on file. Confirming identity then is trivial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed the amount of personal information that was on the userpage. khaosworks demonstrating that he is in control of their account and that he is who he posted on his userpage would absolutely work from a technical perspective, and is possible to verify from a distance. Their personal information is kind of on file, because they posted it on their user page far enough in the past that it can be used on the same principle as a committed identity.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

How about this. Khaosworks, please post a new thread here from the alternate account, once the current session has expired. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a wave of the hand, as it were, but would it be possible, Khaosworks, for you to meet a senior editor (admin etc) to attest to yourself in the same way? Not sure what the WP:CRATs might say to that; but I agree with the point made about skyping. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really even need to be an admin, just any established editor you know in real life who can confirm you are in control of your account. They don't need to be standing next to you - skype, a phone call, carrier pigeons, and smoke signals all work fine for this purpose. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Bencmq is a steward living in Singapore. I mean, they only have 5 million inhabitants, how hard could it be to arrange for them to meet up? Regards SoWhy 10:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I fancy an exotic holiday, all-expenses-paid by the WP:BN slush fund :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Khaosworks: Would you object to having CheckUser run on your account? It can't prove that your account hasn't been compromised, but if there is no evidence of that, it may alleviate some of the concerns here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No issue - whatever it takes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please email me (or enable email on your account). Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser note: CU shows no evidence of a compromised account - the data is consistent back as far as the tool can see. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

So this is me in charge of the original account. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And this is me on the new account. --Khaosworks101 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Done

 Done. Having seen the checkuser confirmation above that there is no evidence of a compromised account, I have transferred the user rights from User:Khaosworks to User:Khaosworks101. 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks to everyone for your help! --Khaosworks101 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

wikien-bureaucrats archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T162068

phab:T162068 is queued for deleting the old mailing list, wikien-bureaucrats. We were not clear about what to do with the old archives, without an active list any more I'm in favor of having them purged - some of the comments on the original discussion referenced privacy concerns. Does anyone have any need for these to be retained - if so for what period? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any reason to keep them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an archivist (and a bit of a hoarder) at heart and I've saved every significant e-mail that I received or sent since 2005, so the thought of flushing the entire wikien-crats archive almost pains me physically. Can't they be preserved as read-only? Can't they at least be saved on a page on stewardwiki? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Why stewardwiki? That would provide all stewards access to the archives, and it is always possible that the two enwiki bureaucrats could no longer be stewards or bureaucrats at some point in the future. --Rschen7754 18:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The "default" behavior will be that they are still archived, however with the list gone adding / changing archive access would no longer be possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Any other comments on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think we really need them, but if anyone wants to check anything that happened on the mailing list I have archives going back quite a while. It was generally used for WP:VANISH-related business. I think you can safely delete them without missing anything of any particular historical interest. Andrevan@ 03:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• The mailing-list delete task is currently pending us to pick to delete or retain the archives, see phab:T162068 for the discussion and caveats. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with deleting them. There's really no reason to keep them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete them. If anything, any privacy issues would push us over the line to delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Deletion seems reasonable. –xeno^talk 12:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Just out of curiosity, has anyone asked legal@ about this? I don't think there would be a huge issue given the age, but technically it is Foundation property and making the emails 100% inaccessible might be something they want to ponder before you did it. Otherwise, I have no issue with deleting them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Since we didn't deal with legal issues, I don't think it will be a problem. Maybe @EHershenov (WMF): will know. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We had not, and I doubt we need to - however since this was raised I dropped an email to to WMF Legal advising them of this discussions and asked for on-wiki comment. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Xaosflux Did you get an off-wiki reply? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refdoc active

Refdoc (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)} Hi I received a notice that I am about to be de-sysopped. I have indeed become a lot less visibly active as editor, but in parts this is because my work PC from which I do probably most of my casual contributions makes logging in a tedium - others are using it too and I do not like passwords accidentally stored there. So, the account is still mine and I am still interested in maintaining the sysop privileges which I occasionally use and never have abused. Thanks Refdoc (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Refdoc:, by making that edit you are no longer listed as inactive, good to see you are around. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Refdoc: You might consider creating a secondary account which does not have the admin bit and making the edits on the shared computer from that account. Just make sure to indicate it is yours (on both accounts), and make sure to not use both in a discussion without advising people in the discussion. Naming it something obvious like "Refdoc's Public Sock" is helpful, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

wikien-bureaucrats closure has completed

Resolved

phab:T162068 just completed and wikien-bureaucrats has been removed. FYI: WMF Legal did respond that they did not need the list (see phab ticket). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• That's good, I just didn't want that to come up at some later date and cause drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#June 2017

Resolved

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

1. Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

-Bot

Resolved

Probably should remove the bot bit from User:LyricsBot, which is WMF-banned user User:Dcoetzee's Bot. SQL^{Query me!} 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW the account is globally locked anyways and the operator being banned doesn't mean the BRFA is suddenly unapproved. I dunno. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That account is already scheduled to be de-botted next week, see Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Inactive_bots_May_2017 - as the bot and operator are locked I don't think they will be contesting the removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Account is globally locked, will be dealt with eventually, got it, please close. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done was removed in the batch of accounts cleaned up this morning. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Adminship granted without passing RfA

Resolved

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Adminship_granted_without_passing_RfA. Everyone's input is welcome on this important issue. Username person (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm not seeing any policy supported actions that bureaucrats should take at this time. Outside of voluntary resignation or arbcom motions we are limited to certain "emergency" situations (with very weak support expressed in the last discussion) and this does not constitute an emergency. The other venue to address this would be with office staff, if the addition was an office action they are certainly able to reverse their action. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Concur, tagged resolved as the destination thread is closed. –xeno^talk 20:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log

I noticed that this page is incomplete — changes before ~16 February 2004 are not included. Missing entries to be added can be found here, but the bureaucrats who changed user rights are not known. If the page "Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log" will not be completed soon, it should have at least a notice that it is incomplete, and a link to the page where missing entries can be found. XXN, 12:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything after 20:19, 22 Dec 2004, either. It's already tagged historical, so I don't see any issue. Anyone looking at the page will be able to tell the content is not complete. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A few of them are listed on meta:Meta:Bureaucrat log, and of course Special:Log. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: yes, Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log has only entries for February-December 2004; it does not have more recent entries after December 2004, but at least these can be found in the current users rights log. Meanwhile, any older user rights changes on this project (before February 2004) are missing completely in any of these two main resources. This is why I asked about adding them into Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log. XXN, 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why? You are asking for people to do a lot of work and haven't shown why the lack of the log is hurting anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd support deleting Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log as it's a duplication of other logs anyway. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis, am I asking too much? This is mainly for purposes of transparency.

A real case behind, yesterday I met an admin for whom I haven't found anything in both local and global logs (including also the page Special:UserRights/$1 accessible directly from sidebar), and unlike other cases, they was not mentioned even in Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log. On a platform where everything is at light, for those who doesn't know about all adminstrative pages this is something strange probably (this was also my first feeling). Actually the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats in §See also contains a half-truth: "Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log: for Bureaucrat activity (user rights adjustments) before 24 December 2004". This brought me here. XXN, 19:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe the idea of having a manual log page was replaced by the automatic generation of user rights logs. There's no action here except maybe to remove the old log and the links to it. Andrevan@ 20:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• It would seem we don't have them and recreating them would be a huge task with little to gain. Any logging more than 10 years old is unlikely to be needed anyway. Yes, it would be nice, but it isn't practical to try to reconstruct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: I think the source of your confusion is the fact that before the time of the first entry in the bureaucrat log, the bureaucrat user right did not exist at all on the English Wikipedia, and sysops were created by developers . See the relevant announcement. Last year I went through all the manually generated logs and tried to make them as complete as possible, including these edits to the bureaucrat log. Graham87 13:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, who was this admin, if you don't mind me asking? Very old RFA's (some from the time before the process was created!) can be found at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship. Graham87 13:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaihsu. XXN, 21:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kaihsu. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological and User:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002). Graham87 13:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

RonBot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please provide RonBot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) with the sysop flag, expiry time two weeks if you feel it's appropriate to use expiry times with admin flags in this situation. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot. This task has already been trialed once from the operator's main account per WP:ADMINBOT and is technically sound. In the interest of caution and to allow any final community comments before approval, I consider it important to provide a larger extended trial from the bot account, and it is impossible for this admin bot to do a dry run without admin rights. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Note: this bot is under the control of existing sysop User:Ronhjones — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resysop request for User:Liniey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Liniey (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hello everyone. I am administrator Liniey who joined Wikipedia in 2001. Good to see you all after so many years. I always used to edit as an ip but finally decided to log back in. However, it looks like my sysop rights were removed and I had no information about it. That is why I am requesting that my sysop rights be restored back. Thank you. Liniey (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a 'crat, but I note your account (Liniey) seems rather new (though I'll be damned if I can find an entry for you in the user creation log!) and only has 13 edits..? Are you sure weren't previously registered with a different username? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a crat either, but you should be logging in using your former Admin account before it can be considered. Have you read [[2]] to see if you qualify? You would have to clearly and convincingly demonstrate you have been active as an IP. But again, you should log in using your old account first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem like that because I never bothered to sign in until now. Also, I did not register with any other username and this is the only account I have. I used to have admin rights back in the day when Wikipedia was running under UseModWiki software but I am not able to use them now. Liniey (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's been that long (and the relevant article says that UseModWiki was used only until 2002), then you're very far beyond the three-year expiration date. You'd have to go through a new RfA to get the tools. (not a crat) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with that because my sysop rights were never removed, due to software change I am unable to use them right now. This is why I'm requesting that the sysop rights be restored back. Liniey (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but realistically if you've not noticed you lost the bit for a number of years then you would have had it removed due to our inactivity guidelines. Either way, worth having a crat weigh in -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Why now, after 15 years? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Because I want to help here by doing administrative work and contribute my part. Liniey (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• If you've been gone for over a decade, you should not be using any advanced user-rights anyways. There is no reason for you to perform any administrative tasks. Welcome back though, we look forward to your constructive contributions to Wikipedia's encyclopedic content! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but I never went away. I have been editing Wikipedia these many years as an ip. I am also well familiar with all policies and guidelines and you all can be certain that I will not take any administrative action that is out of policy. Liniey (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course you will not "take any administrative action that is out of policy", because you are no longer an admin (if you ever were, which does not appear to be posssible to prove). I'm sorry if this not satisfactory for you, but hopefully it will not stop you from contributing to Wikipedia! If there are any specific admin actions you would need to be done, you can ask me or use the relevant process to request protection, deletion, protected-edits, page-moves, etc. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• My spidey sense is tingling and thinking that taking no action is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

  +1....let's wait for the crats to weigh in. Lectonar (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Bureaucrat note: Liniey: Based on what's been presented, I don't think that I can be satisfied per WP:RESYSOP #1 or #4 in this case to restore privileges. I wonder if Graham87 can find any pertinent information on this. –xeno^talk 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried looking through NostWiki but AFAICS only mainspace was preserved? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Xeno, I think this is most likely due to change in software. I indeed was and should currently be an administrator, but due to technical reasons it does not show that way. Liniey (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You still have to verify you are the same person from 2001 (ie: account isn't compromised or sold), that you had admin rights then, and prove you haven't had a 3 year break in editing, according to policy. Proving you had admin then is the easy part. The rest, not so much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, your name does not appear on this list of active users from the old project. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the user creation log for the 14th, didn't see. Where can we more easily find the date the account was created? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The SUL tool does not give a date of creation either for the en Wikipedia account, but it does say the account was created before 2006. ~ GB fan 15:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes Dennis, I am the same person who registered their account in 2001 and it has always belonged to me. I was an administrator at that time and also have not had any 3 year break in editing because I have been editing as an ip every year. DoRD, I don't know why the name is not appearing. Liniey (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you are understanding me. Simply stating this is true doesn't mean anything. If you account was compromised, the compromising party would say the same thing. If you are/were an admin, you should be familiar with the standards here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to prove these things. Simply stating them won't get you anywhere. Are there any current functionaries who can vouch for you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis and Neil, I think I have already stated everything that needs to be said. Liniey (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: I am not seeing sufficient evidence to overcome a lengthy inactivity disqualification for this request. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You haven't shown any evidence that you were ever an admin. You haven't shown any evidence that you have made a single edit to Wikipedia before today. ~ GB fan 15:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• It probably says something good about everyone's inherent kindness or decency (or something), but Jesus, Wikipedians are easy to troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ benefit of the doubt and then some -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, the account is old, I verified that based on meta logs automatically creating the entry once he edited. This was a bit trickier than most trolls as old accounts are in short supply and they aren't making them anymore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, the account is very old. Their User ID is 111. To put that in perspective, Jimbo's account is 24 and mine is 2,047,841. Someone like Stephen Gilbert (talk · contribs), who first started editing in 2001, has the User ID 86. This is not to say that WP:RESYSOP has been met. Furthermore, WP:SYSOP does not indicate that IP edits would count towards activity requirements. Mkdw ^talk 16:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Stephen's 2001 contribs are in his history. Liniey has nothing before today. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked indef. "I think I have already stated everything that needs to be said." was the last straw. We don't need this person running free around the project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I was asleep when this all went down. I think not resysopping was the right decision, of course. To respond to a few points:

• It was actually possible for anybody to be a sysop in the UseModWiki days, as long as they had the sysop password. See the page about admins on the Nostalgia Wikipedia and this discussion thread,.
• The user ID numbers were counted from the installation of the Phase II software in January 2002, not UseModWiki, so they don't necessarily mean anything in this case.
• @Salvidrim!:: Namespaces were invented in the Phase II software; at the time of the edits to the Nostalgia Wikipedia, they didn't exist. Talk pages were at titles ending in "/Talk" (e.g. Evolution/Talk) and user pages were lumped with every other page on the wiki (e.g. here's Larry Sanger's old user page). Graham87 03:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for additional details!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resysop request (Happyme22)

Happyme22 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) To Whom It May Concern:

I was inactive for a period of time due to schooling and a rather important job, contributing rather infrequently during that period; my account had its privileges of adminship removed on 1 March 2015.

I am hereby requesting a restoration of the admin status, and intend to become quite active once again.

In terms of the checklist, the attending bureaucrat can be fully satisfied that my account has not been compromised, that my inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that I have not been inactive for a three-year period of time

Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-bureaucrat comment) AFAICS, Happyme22 meets the requirements of WP:RESYSOP as they have not been inactive for any period of three years, and were indeed desysopped for inactivity. Happyme22: there is a customary 24-hour waiting period before a bureaucrat can process your resysop request, but from my perspective I don't think there will be any issues. Welcome back! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• I see no issues. We can return them in about 7.5 hours. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Resysop request (Dragons flight)

Dragons flight (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

About two months ago, I requested [3] the removal of my admin rights while I was focusing on personal health issues. I've now completed my recommended course of treatment and am on the mend. That being the case, I'd like to take up the mop again. Thank you. Dragons flight (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Everything seems fine here, standard 24 hour hold for comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Good to see you are feeling better Dragons flight. We could always use the extra help, glad to have you back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• I see no issues. Welcome back! (after the 24 hour period) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• No concerns after 24 hours so  Done. As for why this request was filled 20 minutes or so earlier than it should have been, I forgot that UTC is an hour ahead of BST at the moment and misread the timestamps... Acalamari 11:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dragons flight. My talk page calls for people to tell me good news. This is really good news on both counts. Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:Changing username

I invite you to an ongoing RFC discussion about allowing global stewards/renamers to process usurpation requests. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#June 2017

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

1. Animum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Chuck SMITH (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Cprompt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. TexasAndroid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that Cprompt is a former Crat. As is often the case, a number of ediors there that I recognise and admire. Chaps, come on back whenever you want, the water is warm. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot needs flag

Please provide the bot flag to Guanabot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) following an approved BRFA. Throwing this in a separate section to head off any mistakes with granting the admin flag to the wrong bot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Admin bot needs flags

Please provide RonBot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) with both the admin and bot flags. This follows an approved BRFA. Note that this bot is operated by a current administrator, Ronhjones (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Desysop request

Folks, I think the time to hang up my boots is here, due to a variety of reasons like changing priorities. Perhaps sometime in the far future I might consider taking the admin bit up again, but until then, I'd like to get it removed off me. Cheers, MikeLynch (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

MikeLynch Thank you for your service. I recognise your name and respect your contributions here. We're poorer without you and when you're ready, come back and ask for the tools again.  Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls

<discussion moved to User talk:Dweller. Please do not restore. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)>

Voluntary deadmin request (Crazytales)

Resolved

Crazytales (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Please remove the sysop bit from me. I've been pretty inactive and not really done anything that needs it recently. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Crazytales/Alison. Reluctantly done. Feel free to come back and ask for the tools to be returned, or if you need additional userrights. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice task for someone

I'm recusing from closing the RfA. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Easy one. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Call that weighing consensus? Huh :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I had to take out the big scales — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please consider snow closing this RfB

Resolved

Will a kind 'crat please WP:SNOW close Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim!. It's well past brutal, and quickly becoming damaging to the project and some of the people involved.- MrX 11:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's gone well past just assessing the merits of the candidate for a position. Frankly, it all sounds rather personal now. — fortunavelut luna 12:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Salvidrim!, there's a persuasive case for a snow close. Would you like the RfB to continue for any particular reason? I'm not inclined to wham an admin with the ignominy of a SNOW close without a say-so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• NB1 I'm quite happy to wait the 4-5 hours till Salvidrim! is likely to be back online. NB2 Another Crat may take a different view. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the hour and his location, it's apparent that the nominee has been asleep. He said on Twitter 7 hours ago that he was trying to go sleep. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Cyberpower678 aleady has. — fortunavelut luna 12:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh oops sorry. I just woke up and say the RfB tanked ridiculously. When I skimmed its content, I felt I couldn't let this go on. Feel free to revert me. I wasn't aware of this discussion when I closed it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

While I understand your reasoning, I don't think any non-crat should have made that call. I propose reverting and allowing Salvidrim! to answer Dweller's question for the reasons he has stated. Brutal or not, an experienced admin should not have to have a SNOW close on their record without being able to at least comment on the proposal first (and especially without having the change to withdraw the RfB first). Regards SoWhy 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough,  Done—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Now that I've woken up, of course I'll withdraw it myself.  Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I think we should be far less concerned about the ignominy of a slow close, and more concerned about the ignominy of leaving this highly embarrassing and damaging discussion continue. I'm glad that Cyberpower678 opted for common sense.- MrX 12:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I care more about our editors than most things on here. We should all remember that our editors are the most precious resource we have. When someone has the guts and gumption to run the RfX gauntlet, we owe it to them to treat them with respect, especially when doesn't go the way they'd like and double plus especially when they're a longstanding and valuable member of the community. A few hours seemed a small price for courtesy and in fact it was about 30 minutes. Salvidrim!, thanks for withdrawing and thank you for offering to serve. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And I agree 100% with putting editors first, but let's have some perspective: editor's failed bid for a promotion is far less of a concern than the editor's reputation and trustworthiness being severely damaged by his own indiscretion. I'm astonished that I even have to explain this. It leaves me wondering if you read any of the discussion on the bottom section of the RfB where sexual assault, animal cruelty, and pee fetishes were being openly discussed.- MrX 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Although not requested by the nominee, perhaps a courtesy blanking is in order, for his own good. I almost did myself but think this might be treading too deeply into the Crat's domain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As with closing, I think this is something Salvidrim! should decide for himself. Salvidrim! is an editor who does not hide his opinions, to the point of self-harm sometimes, but he still is an admin in good standing and the RfB page does not really contain material that is potentially harmful to anyone but himself, does it? Regards SoWhy 13:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

*shrugs* it's already noindexed, and blanking it when anyone who cares can just look at the previous revision is useles and only gives the appearance of attempting to hide stuff. I didn't blank my ARBCOM2016 answers and IMO they were more in-depth than anything that was said in the RfB. Thanks for the concern though :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being courtesy blanked upon request - including over the temporary protection currently applied to stop post-voters. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry

Are there any current rules about the necessity of an admin to perform admin tasks in order to keep the bit? I ask because I just ran across an admin who, as far as I can tell, if I'm reading the logs right, hasn't performed an admin task for over 5 years. They've edited, buth nothing administrative. Is that OK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You're looking for WP:INACTIVITY, which addresses your question in the first sentence. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. What's unclear to me is whether a non-bureaucrat (myself for instance) can begin the notification process before turning it over to 'crats, or if the entire process needs to be initiated by you folks, for the purpose of vetting it before it begins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken The "or" between "edits" and "admin actions" should be understood as a nor -- an account needs to have made neither edits nor logged admin actions. An admin simply editing is not considered inactive with regards to policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've slightly tweaked the wording to remove potential ambiguity. ('crats, feel free to further tweak wording if you feel my change is not ideal) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: additionally, we do track inactive administrators (see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017) and until very recently had a bot taking care of most of the notifications. Another bot operator is reviewing the task to re-automate it now. There is not policy requirement as to "who" has to send out the notifications, but we do have it covered for the most part. If you think the 5 years no logs admin is interesting - check out the current inactivity report above. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that clarification and additional information. The admin in question has been editing, so would not qualify under the inactivity standards. I thought at some point there was consideration of requiring admin actions to keep the bit, but I may be mistaken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might be thinking of functionaries (CU-OS), who do have activity requirements that dictate they must be using the user-right to keep it. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)I

That might be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, 'crats are now required to do 'crat things to retain that bit. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that something similar should be adopted for admins as well. An admin who has no edits at all is probably someone who has simply, for whatever reason, become disinterested in Wikipedia, but one who makes edits but does not do any admin tasks is still interested in Wikipedia, but doesn't appear to be interested in being an admin anymore -- or else they haven't come across anything which required using the bit, which seems unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussed in 2015, without consensus: Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I !voted in support of that, so it's probably what I was thinking of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the admin who has never had a logged admin action. Weird. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ffirehorse - Is it possible some admin stuff wasn't logged as it is today back in 2004? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that. I found it interesting that in 2009 19 "support" votes were sufficient to become an admin. Also that of the 20-some-odd participants, only 2 names were recognizable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

One of those supports came from Andrevan of this parish. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

19 supports could still be enough now, depending on how many people participate in an RfA - there is no quorum... WJBscribe (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are no relevant results for this search, which should catch all the old logs. Graham87 09:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I think you meant 2004, not 2009. We still have some Admins who had no RfAs I believe. I'm one of those who think there should be minimum Admin activity requirements for Admins. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I love the evidence of experience put forth at that RfA as well - Been with us for a few months now, and 1201 edits since 2 July 2004. Things were certainly *very* different back in those days!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My old account's admin rights

Resolved

 – Permissions will be removed via the inactivity process. –xeno^talk 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I used to be an admin under the username Jakec. Since it's been suggested that keeping the tools on an inactive account might pose a security risk, and since I don't have any want or need for the tools anymore, it'd probably be best to remove them from my old account. Thanks. Jakob (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• They will be automatically removed in less than two months. I'm not a crat, but I imagine it is hard to them to remove sysop rights from a user unless they are logged into that account making the request. On a personal note, its sad to see an admin leave, we don't have an overabundance of good admin as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Jakob Coles: do you have any logged edits or actions between these accounts that can demonstrate that they are both under your control? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What sort of actions do you mean? To be fair, I can't prove that the other account is mine, as I've scrambled the password, though there is circumstantial evidence, like having the same name and creating content in the exact same subject area that I specialized in as Jakec. If that's not sufficient, I'm glad to wait for the bits to expire due to inactivity, it doesn't really matter to me. Jakob (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jakob Coles: actions or edits could include and old account leaving a message or a log summary for the new account to attest to the ownership, access to a committed identify or the secret match to a public key, etc. While a desysop action is reversible, the community has shown via policy making that the removal of administrator access is a "Big Deal". Thank you for bringing this up and for taking account security seriously, but I am not seeing any policy based support that will allow this to occur. I know this sounds very "bureaucratic" - but that is somewhat the point. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Xaosflux: When I left, I hadn't planned on ever coming back, so I'm afraid I don't have anything like that. Jakob (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-bureaucrat comment) Even if the sysop permissions were removed from Jakec "two months early", they could still request it within the same three-years-from-last-edit period whether this request is "legitimate" or not, so I'd be fine with processing this sooner rather than later as it doesn't impact the user's ability to get their permissions restored. However, I have absolutely no doubt this is legitimate. From reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-07/Interview, [4] and old user page revisions I am convinced there is no foul play (FWIW). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• If there isn't any doubt that these two users are the same, why not just move the bit to the new account?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• While I have no doubt, it remains that there is no "proof". To make an "unproven" account admin requires, IMO, more strict verification than "hastening an inactivity desysopping by two months". If Jacob had said "Jakec is my old account and is compromised" it would have been desysopped without anyone asking any questions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Seems to me that just waiting two months would be the best option. If the password is sufficiently secure even the owner cannot figure it out, it isn't much of a risk. As an added bonus, no one can really complain about it either. :) Prodego ^talk 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I guess my argument can be summed up as "there is no harm in hastening the inactivity removal by two months, while there is theoretical potential harm in not doing so if the admittedly-abandoned account gets compromised". It's a net positive. Plus, we try responsabilizing admins about account security (strong passwords, 2FA, public logins, inactivity), it seems kind of silly to react this way when one (apparently) decides to heed our recommendations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Although I've given it some thought and still stand by the fact that I proposed the alternative solution above, of course I think the bureaucrat team is taking the right decision. I agree with Nihonjoe that it is unlikely that the account will be compromised and I too hope that the odds won't bite us in the butt and 'crats don't get accused of mismanaging this avoidable problem. :)  Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not a 'crat (or admin), but since I commented on this at the current RfB, I might as well comment here: I think xaosflux is right. If there isn't proof the accounts are connected there isn't a basis in policy for a desysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: I think waiting for it to be automatically removed is the best course. If it gets compromised between now and then, it will be removed early. I find that scenario unlikely, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Unless you can prove Jakec is you, we can't accept a resignation from another account on their behalf, sorry. As others have said, this will resolve itself in a couple of months anyway. WJBscribe (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed. On this occasion, no need to consider a potentially controversial action to do something that will happen uncontroversially pretty soon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-bureaucrat comment) I think I found a way to definitely prove that the two accounts are linked, but I'll need some help from a user with oversight access. More information at User talk:Jakob Coles#Question. Even if we ultimately decide still to wait for the procedural inactivity desysop to take place, I think it will be beneficial to definitively link the two accounts anyway to avoid any further problems down the road. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Of the 'crats, Avraham, Dweller, and MBisanz are also oversighters. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User Stemonitis a prolific administrator is missing

Resolved

 – No action needed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear bureaucrats I want to inform you that a long time administrator who goes by the username User:Stemonitis have not made any edit since December 2012. It seems they may have left the project but didn't inform about it on their userpage. They may be included in the WP:MISS Anoptimistix Let's Talk 05:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Are you sure you are looking at the right page? Anyway, inactive administrators are routinely desysopped, so it's not a major concern. Alex Shih^Talk 06:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Apologising for the mistake I accidently mistaken Stemonitis revision history as contributions history and thought the prolific admin might be missing. Once again apologising. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 07:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix Let's Talk£

Rumours of their absence have been much exagerated, Mr. Twain  ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot flag needed

Would somebody mind flagging TohaomgBot, and then unblocking it when done?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Is there a related discussion somewhere? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TohaomgBot—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading, I'd like an assurance from Tohaomg that they won't put the bot on other enwiki tasks without prior approval. –xeno^talk 16:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xeno: I approved this in the time between when Cyberpower678 replied and you commented. Still, assurances would be nice. I don't foresee any issues, though I am not a psychic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nihonjoe: No worries. –xeno^talk 16:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read comments below and I promise to use both account only for task it was approved for. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved Crat please...

Resolved

 –  Done by Xeno --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

...take a look at the oppose !vote in the current RfB.

I'd suggest it's a bad-faith and cowardly SPA !vote that should be struck or deleted as disruptive, but I defer to someone neutral to the nomination. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's their only edit sans one character to blue their user page; I'd suggest not so much a an SPA as a sock. Second post to a RfB, of all things? Nah. — fortunavelut luna 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, probably some CU work available here. I've moved the contribution. –xeno^talk 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPASOCK needs, nay demands to be written. Ooh, it already has. Anyway, thanks Xeno. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Vote re-added, troll blocked, and vote reverted. If this should have been left to a crat, then consider it a block by Aardvark Floquenbeam. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm surprised that no-one noticed the username violation  ;) perhaps it's just an ENGVAR-thing  :) — fortunavelut luna 13:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can make the Aarvark an honorary Crat, in recognition of services to early alphabeticisation in the RfB process. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to save people looking up what happened, this thread is about this edit to Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2. Graham87 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Plain support votes at RfX

I've been thinking about these lately and looking at what our documentation says about them.

In WP:RFA, which is not labelled as a policy page, the text reads "In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way"." This is followed by a footnote that reads:

Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.

This seems relatively clear to me. A simple signature in the support column is "per nom" and should be weighted as such. Although I must say that the "yep" comment" is slightly at odds, as I'd have to read "yep" in support as "yep" to the nomination.

The essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters includes the following rubric:

"You are not obliged to leave a comment with your support vote, but most users do, and if you don't, in the case of a close call the closing Bureaucrat might discount your vote."

This seems at odds with the RfA page rubric.

Questions:

1. Does the RfA page text generally read right?
2. Should we delete the "yep"?
3. Should we amend the essay text to match?
4. Should WP:RfA be a policy page? Xaos got this, below.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As for RfA - this is certainly a "process page", not a "policy page". Policy elements should be adjusted at Wikipedia:Administrators as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good point.  Done on Q4 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's my view, from my own RfB q/a, the community has made it clear that RfA is still not a "vote" and so I would also consider straight "[Support|Oppose]. ~~~~" entries with less weight towards the consensus building process. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly at odds with what we say at RfA. Would you consider a simple signature in support to be weighted less than "per nom", followed by signature? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes - that being said "less" is non null. I weigh every single statement, keeping in mind the "not a vote" principal (and same for opposition comments). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing I keep in mind with generalizations (such as in the guides) is that any "per X" statement is dependent. A "per nom" argument itself won't be any stronger than the "nom" (we see this in XfD all the time) - and we shouldn't presume that every RfA nomination will be strong. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see the attraction of clarifying/codifying unwritten rules, in terms of promoting clarity and certainty (although it also risks building bureaucracy given the sprawl of ever lengthier policy pages). On the other hand, the risk is that we soon find that there is little consensus on these issues. I don't think we (the Wikipedia community) or indeed we (the bureaucrats) are all on the same page as how much weight a "bare support" should get. My understanding is along the following lines:

1. There is a pretty broad consensus that bare oppose comments ought to be given less/limited weight. Rationales explaining the reason for opposition (even if just identifying another opposing comments with which one concurs) are strongly encouraged, the onus being on those opposing to make their case.
2. There is a (less widespread) consensus that this rule does not apply as strictly to support comments, which are to be taken as support for the nomination or simply confirmation that candidate is found competent overall.
3. However, there is also a consensus that support comments are more persuasive if accompanied by a rationale and especially rebuttal of arguments deployed in opposition.

I accept that the above views are far from universally held... I suppose you could distill that as a matter of emphasis:

1. An oppose comment is weakened by the absence of a sensible rationale.
2. A support comment is strengthened by the presence of a sensible rationale, but not weakened by its absence.

It should be remembered that, given the level of support the community expects nominations to have to succeed, all other things being equal, the RfA system gives more weight to oppose comments than support comments in any event. WJBscribe (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a generational aspect here, that the more grizzled an old hand you are, the more likely you are to find a bare support as a weighty "per nom". Your last comment is definitely humungously true. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the footnote is a quotation ([5]). The qualifier "historically" is significant - I obviously likewise perceived this to have a generational element/that consensus may be changing... WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe's comments on bare supports. I would like to add one point. In an RfA (or RfB), the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that a candidate is unsuitable; the null hypothesis is that a candidate is qualified. It follows that a completely bare oppose would have little to no weight, whereas a bare support, while not adding to the arguments in the case of numbers in the discretionary zone, at least pushes the numerical result to the supermajority required. Maxim_(talk) 14:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel this way too and though I think Xao's position is subtly different, I strongly suspect it is overall, the 'Crats' consensus'. But we're supposed to reflect 'community consensus'. I think the community definitely would once have strongly agreed with us. I'm just not sure now. Kudpung's essay, that I cited above isn't the only reason for this. I'm sure I've picked up comments from the peanut gallery, for example during Crat Chats that at least a vocal sizable minority don't agree. I'd welcome comments from non-crats here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Maxim's view on "the burden of proof is on the opposition" I think that an "yup" support should be seen as a community "yes". The weight of a "yup" support might not be as much as a "I feel X would be a good Admin/Crat because ......" support, but should weigh more than an empty oppose !vote. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of making the process efficient, I personally disagree that by default the nominee should be considered to be qualified and have the community's trust. I think the nominator should be presenting a well-reasoned case for granting administrative privileges, with supporters filling in any gaps. This will save duplication of effort in everyone trying to establish the candidate's positives. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason the onus tends to be on the opposers to show why someone shouldn't have the bit twiddled is because of the long-standing and generally widely-held belief that adminship is "no big deal". Yes, there are some who think otherwise, but that's the way it is. I agree with WJBscribe's distilled version above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand the historical context; it's unclear to me though that this remains a majority belief. But in either case, I feel the nominator/supporters have the responsibility of saving the community time and making the case for the candidate's qualifications. They are free to make it a low-key case, in accordance with the "no big deal" principle. I think it is a reasonable expectation, given the large time investment being requested of all the commenters in total. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nominators always have to make a good case. No one here has said otherwise. If I saw a nomination along the lines of "He's a great guy. Give him the bit", I'd certainly be a little wary of it. What's being discussed here is the actual voting (or !voting, if you prefer). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The comment about the null hypothesis didn't have any conditions about the nomination statement, so given the semi-formal language, I wanted to state my disagreement in the absence of greater context. (I'm on record as saying we should stop saying !vote; it's an affectation and an in-joke for programmers who know that "!" represents negation. It's pretty unclear to non-programmers, and most of the time, it's used in the sense "well this isn't supposed to be a vote but it really is a straw poll vote", in which case, just say "vote" without the exclamation point.) isaacl (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking only as a lowly admin, WJBscribe's version is *exactly* as I perceive consensus regarding RfA. Weighting is not at all the same as XfD, which is neutral. Each oppose already (more or less) counts as two support votes, assuming you need at least 2/3rds of the community to support, so expecting a sane rationale is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-substantive comment) Since you're welcoming non-bureaucrat comments here, I'll just pop in to say that my views align wholly with WJBScribe's above. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• As somebody who was most active ten years ago and pops in from time to time, my perspective is that the original assumption that adminship is no big deal put the burden of proof on the opposition. Over time, the "no big deal" culture has slowly and continuously eroded. In addition, the cost of doing candidate research has fallen as people have created more tools to sift through edits—it is less costly to find opposition. Given the constant worry about the stagnant number of administrators, I think it is important to maintain the "null hypothesis" that the editor will make a good administrator and that the burden of proof is on the opposition. Malinaccier (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just to reinforce the context, I had added the note in question to the Rfa header page quoting WJBScribe verbatim from the Godsy crat chat. Lourdes 17:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• We're asked to treat the RfAs as a discussion - not a vote - so if one doesn't actually add any substantial discussion, I find "bare support" to be less persuasive when weighing the comments provided in support and opposition to the candidate. See my comments on this at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat#Xeno and the associated talk page. –xeno^talk 17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• One of the original golden rules of adminship is that it's "not a big deal," it's a mop, or a set of tools, and not an exalted position of overlordship. In keeping with that, WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and other core policies and principles, a support with no rationale, a "yep" or "per nom" will always have a lower burden than an oppose does. I strongly suggest that there not be any actionable outcome of this discussion aside from the clarification. If consensus were to somehow have changed about the basis for support in an RFX, we should make much clearer what the new consensus were to be about and how it squares with other consensuses, policies, processes, and guidelines. I don't see that happening here right now. I agree with Malinaccier above Andrevan@ 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• As I'm not a bureaucrat I don't have any special opinion on the matter, and if I were a bureaucrat, any opinion that I do have now might be different anyway. If anyone wishes to change my essay to more accurately reflect what bureaucrats actually do, they are welcome to do so. I just have one request: the essay is aimed at a particular user and is written in graded language - please try to maintain the style. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think the essay needs to be changed. It is good to encourage people to post rationales for their votes, and the page is marked as an essay, with the usual disclaimer about minority viewpoints. The fact remains that if someone has, for example, 100 supports per nom, and a handful of well-articulated opposes, that person has always still passed. A nomination is an argument, and one may +1 the nomination or the other supporters, but may change their mind if the opposes are convincing. This is why RFAs run for a little while and may even sometimes be extended. I don't think bureaucrats have applied that rubric differently that I've seen -- it is hard enough to get good admins, and we don't give every user a veto. Andrevan@ 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Andrevan. I came across this recent 'crat chat by coincidence while researching for RfB So Why - something else but closely related. The Golden Ring one was an unusual 'crat chat based on an unusual set of circumstances. If I read it rightly, I believe this particular chat demonstrates that additional weight is accorded to commented support votes, but I'll keep a open mind on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requsting de-Sysop

Handing in the bit per this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Best wishes to you with regards to your current events and beyond. Acalamari 18:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hope everything goes well. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#August 2017

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

1. Sverdrup (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Thespian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. James086 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Ffirehorse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Celestianpower (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Humor me

Crat's aren't as busy as when they did name changes, but we still need Crats. I'm mainly interested in hearing from existing Crats when I ask: do you feel we need some "fresh blood" or simply another Crat or two for whatever reasons? We've had a couple of RfBs as of late, and from my perspective, it doesn't seem clear to the community what the need is, if any. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New perspectives are always welcome, as far as I'm concerned, even with there being little bureaucrat work to do nowadays. We have 22 current bureaucrats and over 30 former ones, so I think it's wise to try to create at least one new bureaucrat per year, if possible, to replace those before them if necessary. On the the recent two RfBs, "too many bureaucrats" appears to have been a trivial concern to those in opposition. Acalamari 13:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Both. This is what I wrote in SoWhy's RfB: "Whether or not there's a need for another Crat, whoever they might be, used to be a common theme at RfB, back in the days when RfBs were more common, but it's worth addressing. I'd say there's a case for adding to our numbers. Yes, tasks for Crats these days are fairly light, and our numbers have stayed reasonably stable down the years, but some of our Crats are less active these days and there have been times (Dec 16 re Godsy's Crat Chat and a March 2017 discussion about the Bureaucrat mailing list) when we've had to resort to pings and talkpage notifications to get a good number of Crats opining. Furthermore, I think a small addition of fresh blood is a good thing from time to time, especially when I look at the energy and thoughtful contributions I've seen from some of our newer Crats at BN." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it comes down primarily to patience of the community. For example in closing RfA's, despite the banner on this page, if a closing actually went 11 hours over I feel we would be getting cries of "do something!". "Throwing more resources" at that problem can be effective. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

We've tried to put forward 'crats, but the community doesn't want them. If they don't want SoWhy, I can't imagine they'll want the other possible 'crats I have in mind. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was very disappointing. Any qualified candidate would have to be wary about running the RfB gauntlet after witnessing that. 28bytes (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had several try to talk me into walking the RfB gauntlet in the past, but I don't think I would pass. Not sure who would. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always knew it will be a gamble, although I hadn't expected this strong an opposition. But I don't think this should frighten others from running and I hope other qualified candidates will step forward. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's always good to have more people available, and new thoughts in the mix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is the nature of politics and human nature that those who have attained positions of unique power, authority, or capability generally want to limit the ability of others to do the same. This is most of the problem with the ever-higher bar being set at RFA, or at least, that's my conclusion after over a decade of watching it. Whether there is a technical or practical need for more bureaucrats is debatable. That the project benefits from having a list of trusted participants that is kept relevant by adding new members from time to time is not. I myself would not want to see the door closed on the grounds that there are too many of us. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Useight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According the the Current bureaucrat count of 22, from the template above, User:Useight is both a current bureaucrat and admin, but hasn't done any editing for five years and last deleted something more than 2 years ago. How are they still on the active list? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

They still meet the admin activity requirements on User:Useight's Public Sock, last edit April of this year. (This question has come up before.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can make an FAQ about this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:USEIGHT. –xeno^talk 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So why not ditch the "main" account and move the sock one to the list of active bureaucrats/admins? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh uh. I wonder what the point is in an alt account that has all the advanced permissions in duplicate. Duh. Of course it doesn't. — fortunavelut luna 17:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting suggestion but the bots that do this work look for the admin or bureaucrat flag, so it won't recognize the sock as an admin, and moving the rights over would defeat the purpose of using the alternate account. –xeno^talk 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to inverse Xeno  :) Using the alt-account rather defeats the purpose of having the rights! Heh. — fortunavelut luna 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad point, but of course as far as inactivity requirements are concerned, admin doesn't care about admin actions, and one can contribute to crat duties without a crat flag (i.e. cratchats). *shrugs* Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If the community wants to increase the activity policy for administrators and/or bureaucrats to include "using" certain tools a well attended RfC will be needed. As far as 'crat actions go - there aren't that many to "use", as WK mentioned above taking part in discussions fulfills the current 'crat activity requirement. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And it comes as no surprise that all the ones with the mop think this is perfectly fine, while everyone else with commonsense thinks it's incredibly poor, to say the least. Well as long as it's totally transparent. Oh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It written right into policy. If you want the policy changed, start a discussion at the appropriate place to change it. We can't help it if Useight is just barely meeting the requirements by occasionally using Useight's Public Sock. Barely meeting is still meeting. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: please can you link me to that policy that states if a user becomes an admin, they can then create another account and that one too gets admin rights, with apparently no questions asked? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Obviously you're confused about what I meant. I wasn't talking about giving admin rights to both accounts. Rather, about his keeping the various bits despite doing practically nothing on the site (under either account). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Well the policy based on this proposal states "Following a community discussion in June 2011, administrator accounts that have no edits or log actions for at least one year may be subject to procedural removal of administrator permissions for inactivity". I've bolded the "accounts" bit for emphasis. IE - this person has multiple acccounts and at least one of them fails to meet the activity threshold. Or am I confused again? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any particular horse in this race, but that page you're linking is a summary page—the actual policy is here, and explicitly says Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions (my emphasis). I agree that Useight is breaking the spirit of the policy even though he's not breaking the letter of it, but the whole point of the way that policy was set up was that it would be enforced strictly according to the letter of the law rather than allowing the 'crats any flexibility. It's unfair to blame them for following the letter of the policy—you'd be among the first to complain if a crat started arbitrarily revoking user rights because he (AFAIK the crats are all "he") felt that the editor in question hadn't used them enough to deserve to keep them. ‑ Iridescent 19:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And that policy cites ref#7, which goes back to the proposal which relates to the account. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The wording was changed from "accounts" to "administrators" by Bbb23—Bbb23, do you know where the discussion that led to that change was? I really don't have the inclination to wade through a 16-page talk archive looking for it. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't "have the inclination to wade through a 16-page talk archive"- what are you, giving up or something?! :p ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 36#Inquiry led to my wording change from Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions to Admin accounts which have made neither edits nor administrative actions as a lexical clarification of language to avoid ambiguity. My change presumably led Bbb23 to change "Admin accounts" to "Administrators" a couple of hours later, citing "admins are supposedly human". This all happened about 3 weeks ago. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I kinda doubt there was one. I don't care either way whether Useight retains their tools; I could make an argument for both sides. The precedent in this case has already been set in favor of retention, though precedent doesn't have to be binding. However, if a close reading of the language of the rules is what you want, you'll also notice the language about notification of pending desysops: "one month before the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping goes into effect (emphasis mine)." I believe that the most recent notification was in 2013, so it has long since expired--if you want to use the letter of the law to get Useight's tools, you're gonna have to wait a month. as I said I don't care one way or another whether Useight keeps his tools, but I have to wonder--does this really matter? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems it's time for me to make my approximately yearly chime-in as a (representative) non-admin who is comfortable with Useight retaining the admin bit, as well as any other admin who has not explicitly lost the trust of the community and shows any evidence of life whatsoever. [This is in response to Lugnuts' "...the ones with the mop think this is perfectly fine....while everyone else with commonsense thinks it's incredibly poor, to say the least", above ] The current policy is a carefully negotiated compromise between those who wanted term-limits and/or fairly rapid removal of the bit from admins who are not frequent, ongoing participants in the community actively using the admin bit, and those who were willing to consider de-admining in only the most unequivocally obvious cases of someone who has been wholly absent for a long period of time. Some recent examples that the community has repeatedly failed to reach consensus to make the requirements any more strict include Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC_on_inactivity_2015 (where Useight is explicitly discussed as an example) and Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_16#Proposed:_Minor_change_to_inactivity_policy_notifications. Martinp (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• We give people extra rights because we trust the person to use them wisely. We do not divorce the person from the account and treat multiple accounts as separate people. If we no longer feel the person needs to have those rights, we need to either ask for them to be removed (functionally impossible without evidence of misuse) or change the policy wording to explicitly state extensive inactivity in using those rights will lead to them being removed. Given that adminship is given (in part) on the expectation that the admin actually performs work in which it is required to be an admin to perform, a properly formatted RFC in the current climate might have a good chance of adjusting that policy. As long a reasonable length of time is proposed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be prudent to ask WMF legal if such a change might draw an office action in ire. It's clear that official policy intends that administrators "are never [to be] required to use their tools", and not clear if "threatening the loss of adminship" renders this intent moot while perhaps creating a liability for pressuring volunteers into servitude by it. My belief is that requiring an administrator to use their admin tools to prevent loosing them is incompatible with policy and a dangerous precedent.--John Cline (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is already precedent; unused checkuser, oversight, accountcreator, efm, bot, bureaucrat, probably some others, may be withdrawn for non-use. –xeno^talk 14:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this being a foundation issue at all. I agree that volunteers should not be required to use any feature the community makes available for them for any specific situation; however loosing access to tools and community status designations (via community policies that certain actions are to be decided by certain classes of users) is not controlled by the foundation. Activity policies vary across WMF projects, with some being more or less restrictive then the English Wikipedia. Some examples include the general 2-year inactivity policy (meta:Admin activity review). See many more examples here: meta:Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you raise very good counterpoints; thoroughly rebutting the preceding comment by me. Thank you and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

YW, of note to other following, meta:Admin activity review/Local inactivity policies really does show a wide range of community standards throughout the various communities. Appropriateness of these is chosen by the communities. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I advised Useight via email that he was the topic of discussion yet again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

E-mail received. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"...I advised Useight via email..." I think that says it all really. Someone who uses this site so infrequently that the chances of them visiting the relevant notice boards or looking at their talkpage to see what's going on are so remote, they have to be prodded in the real world to come here. Surely that shows they lack the basic nouse of the what is required to be in the (elected) position they are in, as they are so far removed from the most active guides, policies and rules that the average user expect an admin/b.crat to understand. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing "sure" about that assertion; the community consensus doesn't agree with you. And per WP:VOLUNTEER, none of us are obliged to hang about the boards, unless we have permissions that require activity, ie CU/OS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Which means his requirements to keep the tools are even more redundant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's only polite to notify the person when you're discussing things that directly apply to them, Lugnuts. Unless you were trying to ram this through without Useight's knowledge. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "ram this through". "discussing things that directly apply to them" - you mean like a topic about a Bureaucrat. On a Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. Which you'd think any Bureaucrat would at least look at on a regular basis. Or again, am I "confused"? That's you're standard get out of jail retort/attack against me here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you seemed upset that I notified him of the discussion. As others have mentioned, not everyone is super active all the time (this being a totally volunteer site and all), so I wanted to make sure he was aware of it. You seemed to take issue with that, so what other conclusion was I supposed to draw from that? And I don't have a "standard get out of jail retort/attack against [you]", whatever that's supposed to mean. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"not everyone is super active all the time" - The very definition of an understatement when it comes to this user, who's made a token amount of edits in half a decade. But hey, what does that matter. You'll keep defending them, regardless of the fact they are adding nothing of value by having those tools. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: It's really simple: Bureaucrats follow policy, especially when it involves removal of rights. My "defending" of Useight has nothing to do with my opinion of the value he adds (I agree that Useight has been severely inactive lately). The current policy is the current policy, and Useight qualifies to keep the tools under the current policy. If you don't like the policy, then go start an RFC somewhere to change the policy. As I said: simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is by account. But the wording was very sneakily changed (without consensus). If you love policy so much, you'll change that back. But, of course, you won't. The account has been inactive for more than the policy states, so should be removed from the list. Simple. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yo @Lugnuts:, wot policy was changed? — fortunavelut luna 12:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only did I mention the change above but you replied to it so presumably read it—ctrl-f for The wording was changed from "accounts" to "administrators" by Bbb23. This is the diff of the change itself. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

But Iridescent, where was the discussion you mentioned? Or wasn't there one? — fortunavelut luna 15:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:INACTIVITY policy. The propsal was for the account. That wording was changed recently without a proposal or, ironically an RfC. How does Nihonjoe explain that one? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's where I'm afraid we have rather different perspectives, User:Lugnuts. I think there is great value to having a sprinkling of old, experienced hands among our various functionaries, who perhaps are not regularly active, but can be consulted and provide the long-term perspective when appropriate, sometimes with a bit of prodding to pay attention. It's altogether too easy to lose the forest for the trees in the morass of "active guides, policies, and rules", and someone with a more historical perspective removed from the last 3 months' arguments can be a helpful voice. And sometimes helpful in stepping in and getting stuff done too, as long as they are self-aware and tread cautiously. As pertains to User:Useight (and I realize I'm jumping between admin and bureaucrat here), he has been a member of the community for nearly 11 years, an admin for nearly 10, and a bureaucrat for 7+, so he has that perspective. In the past year, perhaps when encouraged offline (I don't know), he has contributed sensibly to 2 bureaucrat chats, and his editlog shows he has taken the time to review at least one guideline from 2015 when necessary. Otherwise, he has not deleted the main page nor otherwise broken the wiki. Therefore he seems to be fitting exactly this -- in my mind, helpful -- mold. Martinp (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"he has been a member of the community for nearly 11 years, an admin for nearly 10, and a bureaucrat for 7+, so he has that perspective." Not when they have not been active for the last five of those years (based on their edit history). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts: WP:FLOG. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an essay, we're talking about a policy here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That essay is an extension of WP:COMMONSENSE. Dweller's point is that there seems to be no support for your interpretation of policy here, so why continue arguing? You are always welcome to start a new RFC to change the wording to specifically mean "account" and not "user" but then again, the previous RFC allowed such desysops merely for security reasons (i.e. that unused accounts are likely to be taken over by others without the editor noticing) and those reasons don't really apply here, do they? So the current wording seems to be based on the spirit of the change proposed back in 2011 (which I incidentally opposed but that's not the point). Regards SoWhy 12:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's yet another essay... I come here with an issue about POLICY that seems to have been overlooked by most, and am meet with condescending WP:DICKish comments from editors that should know better. "You are always welcome to start a new RFC to change the wording to specifically mean "account" and not "user"" - And that's the point, which you've missed! The original wording was account and had been account for about six years or so. But this was changed without any RfC or proposal in the past few weeks! The hypocrisy here is overwhelming. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Please don't confuse civil disagreement with "being a dick". I understand your argument, however, from all I can remember from the RFC and from re-reading it now, the words "account" and "user" were used as synonyms, i.e. when people spoke of inactive accounts, they meant admins who have stopped editing, not admins who have stopped editing on their main account. I doubt Useight's situation was something people considered when they supported this proposal. In fact, no one raised the idea afaict. The wording was probably just clarified to reflect the consensus as has been applied for six years, not in an attempt to change the policy . Regards SoWhy 14:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the late replies, I've been busy at work. Sorry, when we've got experienced editors like Dweller using off-hand WP:DICKish comments, I feel I have to call a spade a spade. WP:FLOG indeed. The nerve. Anyway, back to your comment: "the words "account" and "user" were used as synonyms" - well that's how you view it now. If they were meant to say user, it would, but it didn't. The consensus was clear that it applied to accounts. Regardless of how it's viewed, this user is not active in any sense of the word. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Lugnuts How should the bureaucrats proceed? Simply boldly decide to notify Useight that we will no longer consider edits from their alternate to qualify as a bureaucratic action? Do they deserve a year from their last qualifying edit (arguments could be made it was the one above or from the bureaucrat discussion) beforce we enforce our new interpretation? Okay, suppose we do that. All it takes for Useight to retain their privileges would be to ask that we remove the priveleges from their main account strictly as a technical measure so that they can feel comfortable using their account from unsecured networks. As long as they did some bureaucratic action at least every 3 years they would be eligible for restoration of the tools. So now they are jumping through a bunch of technical hoops for no particular reason. Wouldn't it be easier to simply consider edits from an alternate account to be an extension of edits from the main account? In fact, isn't this precise interpretation already enshrined in the way we treat alternate accounts? What particular problem would it solve removing the privileges from Useight's main account? –xeno^talk 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple: The inactive account needs to have the tools/user-rights removed, and they can continue with their sock account. There's no hoops. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

So why don't we just change it back to what it was before Bbb23 made their edit? The Status quo ante bellum, as it were. Wouldn't that diffuse the entire thread, and allow for the aforeentioned RfC to take place if the change to be made is considered ambiguous? — fortunavelut luna 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

People keep telling me I am a terrible stickler for rules but even I cannot see any benefit from reverting an edit that merely clarified something that was already clear to most users. What do you propose we do? Restore a wording we know does not reflect the spirit of the policy (not to mention, as xeno points out, violates WP:SOCK) so we can have an RFC about changing it to the wording back to what it clearly should have been in the first place? That sounds kind of following procedure for procedure's sake. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhh uh, instead of having a massive row about it. There's something to be said for starting over, if only because it clears the air. Anyway, it would have lots more eyes on it than here. You know, like an RfB :D. No skin of my nose, either way. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I guarantee if a non-admin had changed that wording, they would have been reverted faster than you can say hypocrisy. I can't believe that something that was agreed via an RfC, that has been in place for so long, can be changed on a whim without another RfC. An RfC which Nihonjoe was begging me to start to get it changed back! Of course as another admin made the change, no-one dares revert that, do they? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I understand where Lugnuts is coming from here. Useight is not especially active under any account, and it's kind of annoying that this comes up so often there's a WP: shortcut for it. Especially since Useight could prevent the whole thing by just checking in with his main account once a year. And Lugnuts is correct that a plain reading of (the previous but long-standing version of) the inactivity policy refers to inactivity of "accounts" and not "editors."

  On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that the intent of the inactivity policy was to take bits away from people who are active under their alternate accounts, even if that activity is low. Regardless of the precise wording of the policy, no 'crat is going to think that de-flagging due to "inactivity" a 'crat who regularly and recently participates in 'crat chats when requested is a reasonable thing to do, whether the inactivity policy refers to "accounts" or "editors" or anything else.

  So: @Lugnuts: if you're trying to convince a 'crat to do that, I don't think you're going to be successful. If you're trying to make the case to the community that the 'crats are being unreasonable for not following the letter of the inactivity policy, you're welcome to do that, but this is probably not the best venue for it. As has been suggested, an RfC is probably your best bet. There are a lot of folks who think that we should have more stringent activity requirements, and/or tighten up some of the "loopholes" like the present case, and if your suggestion above that everyone with common sense will agree with your position turns out to be correct, it should be a very successful proposal indeed. (OK, that might have been a little snarky, but in all seriousness, you may very well be right that the community wants 'crats to do what you're suggesting. But we can't just take your word for it.)

  And @Useight: could you please just log into your main account once in a while so that we don't have to have these discussions over and over again? 28bytes (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion sounds like what I would characterize as "drama." Everyone familiar with me knows that I'm the very last person to get involved in drama. I have always been, and always will be, only interested in Wikipedia in terms of improving the encyclopedia and assisting others with improving it. I don't get involved in the other stuff. I don't know how often it comes up, but I do know that the WP shortcut is about six days old. I am sorry that people who do get involved in such matters bring it up at least every so often. I appreciate the work and efforts of my fellow bureaucrats. Most of the time, it's been a quick "Hey's where's Useight?" "Oh, there's an alternate account." and that's the end of that. But if we're going to have nitpicky discussions about minutia like wording of a policy, then we're wasting everyone's time. I'm not going to apologize for putting my volunteering at Wikipedia on low priority while I worked full-time and earned a BS in Computer Science, or while I worked 55+ hours per week and spent my evenings enjoying time with my little baby and house-hunting instead of making sure serial commas were in place. But here's the deal. If I don't edit with my main account by the end of next week (end of day August 19th), the bureaucrats have my permission to place a one-month warning on my talkpage indicating that I have one month to edit with my main account or my tools will be removed per the inactivity policy and my tools can be removed then. Alternatively, anyone is free to create an RFC or what-have-you for getting the existing policy (or interpretation of it) changed. Hopefully this paragraph I have written will appease all parties so we can archive this thread and move on with our lives. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're pretty much saying you're not going to use that account. Why prolong it? Other admins just resign when they are busy with other things. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I said no such thing and have no interest in squabbles. Have a pleasant day. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all (guilty), since it's a matter of personal choice in a volunteer community. I do agree with the notion that if this discussion occurs on regular basis, and Useight seemingly simply just doesn't use the main account, relinquish the access might be the better option for everyone to move on with their lives. Alex Shih^Talk 17:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resysop request (nakon)

Resolved

Hello, I am requesting that my sysop rights be re-added to my account. I have completed my break and am ready to return to the project. My rights were removed per a routine request for a break. Thanks. Nakon (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log), Nakon 02:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back Nakon, there is a standard 24-hour hold for these requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nakon 02:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yopp!

This should put a stop to the occasional question about me on this board. I will also take this moment to reconfirm that I still maintain control of Useight's Public Sock. Now I guess I should figure out what still needs to be done around here. Useight (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Useight. It's nice to see you off the "inactive" list. 28bytes (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome "back" :D — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Temp desysop please

The path of my real-world life is currently strewn with cowpats from the devil's own satanic herd (at least, significantly more than usual), and Wikipedia admin stuff won't even make the bottom of my list of priorities for some time. My account has 2FA so there should be no problem there, but I will continue to need to use Wikipedia as a reader, and whenever I look I get half-distracted by admin things that need doing but from which I really need to keep away. I need to remove all possibility of distraction, so would some kind crat please temporarily remove my admin bit to help me with that - I'll ask for its restoration if and when I'm in a position to continue using it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My lord, your presence is urgently required at court on pain of death!

 Done enjoy the silence. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Resysop request (Scott)

Scott (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Dear Bureaucrats, after a few hectic months it appears I have time to dabble again. Many thanks,  — Scott • talk 15:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Standard 24h hold in effect, looks fine (restoration following self-request). –xeno^talk 16:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no issues. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!  — Scott • talk 16:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#September 2017

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

1. Tonywalton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. AmiDaniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Silence (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. BanyanTree (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Please close down this RfA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is my first RfA nomination of a candidate, but the prolific user is not interested in adminship. I did it certainly in good-faith, will surely ask the nominee next time before nominating them, Regards. [6] Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Always best to ask first, Anoptimistix- still, no harm, no foul, as they say. Happy editing! 🍔☕🍟 — fortunavelut luna 08:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Thanks for your kind words, user was a great contributor with a lot of rights. Didn't thought would decline adminship, Regards Anoptimistix "Message Me" 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Anoptimistix, and I'm sure they took it as a great compliment. It's always nice to be reassured by one's colleagues that one is deemed worthy of further giddy heights, as it were 👍 and Lugnuts is one of the best. But, you know, the RfA itself is (with only an occasional exception) pretty brutal- frankly it's an exercise in bear baiting- and some would say the clearest sign of intelligence, wisdom, and common sense is to avoid it altogether! It certainly doesn't reflect poorly on someone that they choose not to devote a week of their lives on such an experience, as you know. Anyway, time to give the crats their board back eh :) take care! — fortunavelut luna 10:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clerking requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2#Edit notice

Could a crat who has not participated check the aforementioned discussion and take the necessary steps if any? Regards SoWhy 19:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nvm, BethNaught did it as an uninvolved admin. Regards SoWhy 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis desysopped

Please see remedy 5. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have carried this out. Acalamari 22:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-sysop please

I asked for my admin bit to be temporarily removed here, and that did help me, thanks. Personal issues have passed more quickly than expected, and I'd like to resume admin activity again, so I'd be most gruntled if someone would flip the bit back for me (after the customary 24 hours, of course). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The ink pixels aren't even dry on the resignation letter. IAR would tend to suggest the 24 hour period isn't needed here, but 'crats aren't really known for applying IAR... -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's OK, I have no pressing urge to use it. And I do think that IAR is something that crats should really avoid. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I'd do it right away! --Aardvark Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have staked out something of a space as the grumpy IAR crat. Andrevan@ 15:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just have the normal 24 hours to wait, as already mentioned. Thanks for your patience. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. WJBscribe (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename

How does User:Julioxo make edits when their talk page is moved to User talk:Jallej? Drmies (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:, Jallej was formerly known as Julioxo, renamed in May 2015. After that someone else created a user named Julioxo in April of 2016. Their talk page should be un-redirected now. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They must have re-created their original user name and continued editing with that. Sometimes the system did it automatically... I un-redirected their talk page. –xeno^talk 03:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It could be the same person, we can't tell from the logs. I've never liked the 'feature' of reusing old usernames by default. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I do hear a faint quacking though, only based on articles edited - as the edits stopped on the Jallej years ago it doesn't seem like any violation. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks X-team for looking into it. Drmies is easily confused. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I changed my name in 2008, and was able to just (accidentally) log into the old name, User:Pharmboy, which I just now use as an alt. People have told me it "can't" automatically let you log back in, and maybe things have changed, but it did back then. Bug? Don't know, not my area of expertise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: it looks the Pharmboy account was created back in 2007 on meta:, and was auto-created on enwiki in 2008. Do you think that you didn't make that account all those years ago? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • • I made the account in September of 2006, then renamed in 2008 to the current real name, November I think. Then a month or two later, I logged in as Pharmboy, didn't think about it. I did not set it up as a new account, and in fact, I even emailed some Crat (likely Biblio since he did the rename) and he said don't worry about it. As for Meta, not sure when I first went there, so I will trust the logs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  Your account was probably renamed on enwiki only. The global account and the meta account would have still existed, and thanks to SUL if you tried to log in with that global account info (the info from Meta) then it would be created on enwiki. With global renaming that would be a bug, but it's common from before 2015. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  I blame aliens. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Temporary desysop, please

I have a large number of things to deal with in real life, and I have found I am not disciplined enough to prevent admin matters from distracting me. I would therefore like to hand in my mop for a brief while. I will return, I'm just not sure when. If it's alright, I would like to keep the autopatrolled and rollback flags. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - good luck with things. WJBscribe (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Request re-sysop

My extended wikibreak is coming to an end and I expect to be returning to the project on a more regular basis. The withdrawal symptoms have been brutal. It's either this or whiskey. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Embrace the healing power of "and" --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything seems fine to me, standard 24-hour hold for comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no issues. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Done. Welcome back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#October 2017

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

1. Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Jdavidb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Jakec (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Ram-Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Yelyos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Kurt Shaped Box (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Jakec edits at User:Jakob Coles still now, although he expresses no interest in being admin anymore. I wasn't sure if that was known or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  It was known. Surprised about Z-man... Hope all is well. –xeno^talk 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I reviewed that and saw that this editor specifically decided to move away from administration. Also left them a clear note that if they want the mop back and can show they are in control of their account it can easily be returned during the next ~2 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Allen3

[7] - unfortunately seems to be correct, in which case we need a desysop.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is utterly shocking. User:Allen3 has helped me so much with DYK. Alex Shih^Talk 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Appears to be legitimate, bit toggled. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Resysop and forgotten email?

Hello. It's been some time since I've been an active member of the Wikipedia community. I am a past administrator, User:Longhair. While I am happy to resume my Admin duties, I also have the problem of forgetting which email address I used to register at the website. Some time back I recall my usual login password being reset, but now forget why.

I am able to remember past passwords, and possible email addresses used, but still unable to login. -- 120.21.226.17 (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried resetting your password and checking all the email accounts you have access to? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have. I may have previously used a work address which I no longer have access to. I've checked quite a few. -- 120.21.226.17 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that it is undeniable verification that the IP is the mentioned user, the geolocation of the IP lines up with that was written on the userpage of the mentioned user. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Here anyone say they are anybody but how can this verified even if it is true as the last edit was on March 2016 a checkuser will not able to be confirm it.Further given the recent security breaches not sure how the crats can help.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Completely understand identity thefts and whatnot... since you're using geolocation to compare IP's, perhaps I can provide locations where I have edited previously in the past? I know where I was in 2005 and 2009 and similar, and both locations are quite some distance apart? -- 120.21.226.17 (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• We do not have technical means to restore passwords on enwiki; you would have to convince a sysadmin to make an extreme exception to actually recover your old account. In the absence of a strong {{Committed identity}}, cryptographic keys, or actual in-person relationships this is unlikely to occur. As far as geo-location, checkuser IP information is not maintained going back for years. That means that locally here the option would be for you to create a new account, and then convince us that you are the same person (with the same challenges as recovery above) - or ask for community approval at WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you sent any emails to anyone during your tenure? Prefereably a current bureaucrat or admin? 100.35.73.190 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Understood. May I ask why passwords appear to have been reset sometime in the past year or so. Most of my wiki relationships were onwiki and I doubt I'd be able to convince anyone if I'm having trouble doing so here. As said, I do recall my original password, which appears to no longer function. I'm guessing a security issue saw those former passwords changed en masse some time ago? As for the email question, quite possibly, but I'd struggle to remember who as of now. I do recall being subscribed to a Wikipedia mailing list of some description back in the day which seemed to be official, perhaps meta related? Seems so long ago now. Appreciate the attention given here, it's my own fault, but I do appreicate the assistance. -- 120.21.226.17 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess what? I remembered the password, after many, many attempts. Thanks again for your assistance. I just convinced the login prompt instead :) -- Longhair\^talk 12:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

fantastic. now change it to a current email (haha) 100.35.73.190 (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

All sorted, email corrected. 'twas an old work address. Never again. Thanks again. Now what's this committed identity thing? Lemme see. -- Longhair\^talk 12:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing, how do I go about getting that mop back? I'll take some time to re-educate before swinging it, but it does come in handy and past trust has been established... -- Longhair\^talk 12:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) @Longhair: If / when the mop returns itself, get yourself a bucket of WP:2FA. That will (hopefully) ensure "Never Again"  :) — fortunavelut luna 12:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note, 2FA is a good thing but it is not a replacement for having a working email/remembering your password; it is used in addition to these to increase the security of an account. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Another welcome back. Remembering that password was much easier than running for RfA.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was willing to just start again, knowing full well how much things have changed since I gained the mop 12 years ago now. I wouldn't even be silly enough to put myself through the modern day process which I have yet to check out, but I recall a pretty good tightening of the belt last time I was around. -- Longhair\^talk 13:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Resysop

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

As far as your resysop request, there is a standard minimum 24 hour hold for comments on these, as you recovered your account at UTC2017-10-06T12:25:11, that would be the start of the period. This account was desysoped ~6 months ago, purely for inactivity. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks -- Longhair\^talk 13:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Could somebody action this? It's been nearly two days now. I'd like to update the former admins lists but I was wanting to process both the last desysop an this resysop at the same time. As can be seen above, there have been no objections, not the least from me ... Longhair, I remember your work in Australian articles well! Graham87 10:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm in no rush and fully understand how things happen around here. So many remember me, yet I barely remember what I did back then myself. Anyway, I'm back. Let's see for how long this time around. (Only left due to life getting busy, as it does). -- Longhair\^talk 10:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would (as a non sysop}, I can confirm Longhair as an admin of good standing and long term benefit to the Australian project, as User:Graham87 has stated JarrahTree 11:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, apologies for the delay. Maxim_(talk) 14:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Maxim, I ended up out of town for the day - didn't mean to let this sit. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll update the former admins pages tomorrow. My watchlist was more hectic tonight (my time) than I expected. Graham87 14:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

All working fine this end. Even that pesky email address I thought may have kept locked me out. Thanks again. -- Longhair\^talk 15:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Eluchil404

As I have recently transitioned from barely active to completely inactive and don't seem likely to transition back for a while, I am requesting that my sysop bit be removed. Thank you for the opportunity. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for your long service; I hope you'll be back again one day. Best. Acalamari 00:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin has recently been closed, with a remedy passed to desysop User:Arthur Rubin.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to notify Rubin of this action. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done @The Rambling Man:, notification has been delivered. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Desysop request (Bencherlite)

After enjoying most of my nearly ten years of adminship, I'd like one of the crats to remove the tools from me. No particular drama here for people to get concerned about, just stuff. Thanks in advance. Bencherlite^Talk 17:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-bureaucrat comment) ...with the anniversary less than three weeks away! Gutting, BL. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

November Inactive administrators

Hello, just curious why November's Inactive Admins haven't been given their first notification about the removal of administrator permissions for inactivity? JMHamo (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like MadmanBot is broken again. I'll nudge the operator and do these manually if still down later. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And policy-wise (Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship) means we'll basically have to roll them to next month or do an off-cycle (due to the 1 month notice period). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Manually provided notification 1. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Resysop request (Vanamonde93)

Vanamonde93 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Approximately a month ago I had requested the removal of my admin rights, to give me the mental space to deal with matters in real life. Having now got past some urgent deadlines, I feel able to take up the mop once again, though I will not be returning to full-time activity for a while yet. I understand there is a required 24 hour waiting period.

Also, a question which might need resolving first: I had enabled 2FA on my account, and did not disable it before my desysop. As I understand it, non-admins do not have the ability to enable 2FA. What happens to my authentication credentials once my admin bit has been restored? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

To answer your question, nothing. If you have 2FA enabled then it will remain enabled regardless of changes to your user rights. You can disable 2FA at any time, even if you don't currently hold the rights to enable it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ajraddatz. To follow up, does this then mean that an inability to login to Huggle or STiki is the result of a bug somewhere else, and not with anything related to 2FA? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know how Huggle or STiki login works. If it's done with OAuth, then you just need to be logged in here to log in to them, and 2FA shouldn't have any impact on it. I haven't used Huggle in over 5 years, though, so hopefully someone with more recent experience can answer your question. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When you have 2FA and the tools doesn't work with 2FA or OAuth, you can use Special:BotPasswords. Well, it's more secure. — regards, Revi 07:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simple 2FA and Wikipedia:Using AWB with 2FA are some easy to read 2FA guides, the second one deals with BotPasswords. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This looks fine after the customary 24 hour wait for comments. WJBscribe (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, all. Vanamonde (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing re: requiring Extended confirmed to transclude and remove RfAs

I noticed there's somewhat of a poll in progress at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Extended confirmed? that seeks to change protection status of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to require "Extended confirm" to edit the page. It doesn't appear the discussion has been mentioned elsewhere. For your information. –xeno^talk 22:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added it to Centralized discussion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Resysop request (JzG)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• JzG (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Thanks for switching off the sysop bit back in April. Please re-enable now. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• BN self request Special:PermaLink/775717482#Desysop.2C_please. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy news! :D Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resignation from the Arbitration Electoral Commission

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017 started, and I am unfortunately still listed as a party of a pending ArbCom case, I obviously can not serve on the Electoral Commission per WP:INVOLVED. I thereby resign and request the bureaucrats to call one of the two reserve commissioners. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I endorsed some candidates, but commission selection had already named User:DoRD as the first successor. DoRD, are you still willing to perform this function? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and I'm in contact with the two remaining commissioners. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@DoRD: Is that a "yes" ? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, yes it is. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for removal of my admin rights

I'm sad to have to ask this but I'm not realistically going to have enough free time in at least the next couple years to be really active here and I don't want to potentially create a problem for the site. I just saw the bot's notification that I haven't been active in a year and I think that's as good a sign as any that I should give them up. I realize I can probably do so myself, but honestly I can't remember how. . :-) I've already updated my user page accordingly. Thanks for your help! Thingg^⊕⊗ 13:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I object =( –xeno^talk 13:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. If you come back before too long you can stop by here to reactivate. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lost access to account

• AuburnPilot (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hello, all! At some point I apparently added two-factor authentication to my main account, though I don't honestly recall doing it. As such, I don't have a means to obtain authentication codes and no longer have access to my admin account. I'm not sure what the procedure is in this situation, but I don't expect I'll ever be able to access the account again, so it might be best to remove the admin bit. Otherwise, I suppose it'll be removed eventually due to inactivity. I have email enabled on both accounts if some verification is needed. Best, --auburnpilot's sock 19:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is a Phabricator thing, not a bureaucrat one. Given this diff we can be certain that User:AuburnPiIot is the same person as User:AuburnPilot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've temporary removed +sysop, per your request above. There are a few options, will reply below in a moment. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Options:
  1. Verify this is actually a 2FA issue
     1. Are you successfully logging in with your password, but then getting the 2FA prompt?
  2. Regain control of your 2FA account
     1. Consider what device(s) you may have enrolled in 2FA with and see if they still have authentication clients on them
     2. Enrolling in 2FA includes a generation of "scratch codes" - perhaps you wrote these down somewhere as it asked you to
  3. Establish strong support that your alt account is under control of the same person that had control of your admin account - then:
     1. We could move your admin access to another account
     2. You could petition a developer to remove your 2FA configuration : This is generally not supported (c.f. phab:T85706), but is technically possible.
        1. Example ticket phab:T168779,

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! It's definitely a 2FA issue as I'm getting asked for a verification code when logging into the site. Unfortunately, the device I would have used at the time was issued by the company I previously worked for and is no longer in my possession (wiped clean and returned upon leaving the company about 5 months ago).

As for proving the connection between accounts, I'm sure there are several people I've been in contact with off project who could confirm and I have no issue with a CU comparing IPs. I also provided a committed identity at some point in the past. It should be in the deleted history of the userpage for my main account (now to remember the string! haha). Thanks! --auburnpilot's sock 03:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, so that clears #1, and #2. Assuming you want to be an admin again, #3 will be needed, do you want to go for the move to a new account or beg a dev route? Your deleted CI begins with "c0e6" and was from 2007 - this would be useful for either. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed - QCU request placed to request comparison while there is current data. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have AuburnPilot and AuburnPiIot on the same IP with the same UA. There is one anon edit to reset the password for the alt account. I believe this is indeed AuburnPilot. :-) Katie^talk 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you KrakatoaKatie - next step is up to AuburnPilot. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Move access

From: AuburnPilot

To: AuburnPiIot

Thanks again, all! By random chance, my admin account was still logged in on the PC in my home office, but I'm still unable to disable the two factor authentication since I can't generate a code. Once this login token expires, I'll be right back in the same spot. It seems like the easiest option would be to simply move the admin access to a different account. Xaosflux: do you think it would be too confusing to flip the bit on the sock account (User:AuburnPiIot) I was using above? Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 23:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• That is possible - standard 24 hour hold for community comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No issues with this at all I think we can file this under purely routine housekeeping. With 2FA this sort of thing is going to happen from time to time. Because my 2FA is limited to a single device I am always worrying that if something were to happen to it I might get locked out. To that end I have the emergency log in codes in a separate place and I created another account w/o administrator rights so I could log in in case I did not have immediate access to my computer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem: if you saved your initial two-factor secret key (or re-register and get a new one) you can activate your 2FA on multiple devices. Storing those scratch codes securely is wise! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to advertisement at WP:AN, no issues as well. AuburnPilot has confirmed that this is them using the original account and by CU. ansh666 03:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • While asking a dev to disable 2FA is an option, I actually think the preferable option is a transfer of rights. I get the scrutiny part, but we should not make it a practice to recommend dev's undoing 2FA, even when CU confirms that the accounts are the same. It is meant to be difficult to break for security reasons, and setting as a principle that we do not disable it except under very rare circumstances beyond the person's control would be a good thing. Since this is also the preference of AuburnPilot, we should just transfer the access between accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns - any account which can prove themselves to be the same person may ask to have the rights transfered to it. We approve the person at RFA, not the account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No worries about this, but we do need a better way of dealing with lost 2fa and transferring 2fa to a new device. It's there anything in phab already related to this? GoldenRing (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Does not seem to be the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Transferring 2FA to another device is not hard. I've done it multiple times with my device. It's just that people don't always remember to do so. This is WHY the instructions tell you to print and safeguard the scratch codes, which provides further evidence that people don't read instructions. :) phab:T100375 and related tickets capture some of the problems with regard to problems and the recovery processes. There are also several community wishlist proposals on the topic of 2FA, which I encourage you to vote for when the voting process begins. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  @TheDJ: I recently went through four phones in about a month (due to a series of ridiculous incidents involving badminton, OTA updates and alcohol). Each time, I had to disable 2FA and re-enable it to transfer from one phone to another. Unless I missed something in the process, disabling and re-enabling 2FA makes all your existing scratch codes useless and it generates you a new set. So every time you want to move to a new device, you have to redo your scratch code storage.

  Other providers who use 2FA have a way of transferring code generation from one device to another, so long as you both know the password and have either a scratch code or a working code generator. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  @GoldenRing: you should be able to store and reuse your 2FA secret to add additional devices. What is difficult is that it is only shown during enrollment. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• No concerns. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns. Except for the detestable blue and orange in the editor's sig. Tiderolls 13:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Recovering/disabling the 2FA seems like a better option to me, otherwise no concerns. Κσυπ Cyp   14:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns, although getting dev to disable the 2FA does seem like a better option because of the history. Being an admin, this is likely more important than not, for the ease of researching past actions, etc. I would strongly prefer the dev route if possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Ha, AuburnPilot is still around! NO BLOCK AND DESYSOP JUST TO PISS HIM OFF AND RESTORE AFTER IRON BOWL! Bwahaha. Also, this has me worried a little bit--if I have a similar screw-up I'm not sure what I would do. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: it worries me also. Make sure you have copies of your scratch codes, and I'd say if you need to use one, you should then turn of 2FA and do it again, getting new scratch codes. That may be being over cautious, but no one wishes to lose their account. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Doug, I don't even remember what "scratch codes" were, precisely. I think I may have something saved on my computer at home, maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Drmies if u dont have them, simply disable 2FA and enroll once more —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
        • ...though after all that bother, this ticket is a little concerning! GoldenRing (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support 2-way I-ban for Tide rolls/Drmies (clearly socks) and AuburnPiIot due to...irreconcilable differences ;) ansh666 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • ansh, I'm sorry I just blocked your little brother. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Confession: I may hold a degree from the greatest university in the state of Alabama, but I will forever be a Bama fan thanks to being raised by parents and siblings who graduated from UA. I was definitely the guy going to class on Auburn's campus wearing a hat signed by Gene Stallings. --auburnpilot's sock 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• No Concern and I'd suggest that we probably have enough comments above for the rights to be switched now. Pedro :  Chat  17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Concern as a matter of procedure. I would prefer that AuburnPilot recovers their original account through Phabricator. The Wikimedia Foundation has technical staff with a lot more tools at their disposal than what CheckUsers have to determine if the original owner is in control of the account. Why not leave this to the experts? Now, I am sure that AuburnPilot and AuburnPiIot are the same person. I just don't think that a vote of random community members is how this sort of case should be handled. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment! I haven't been too active recently but it's good to be back around the site. Reading all the comments above, I see some concerns regarding admin access being moved from one account to another. My preference is simply for whatever is easier for those required to do the work cleaning up my mistake in not maintaining the authentication access for the account. From my chair, it seems easier to move the access but I'm not familiar with Phabricator and haven't the slightest clue if the devs would be willing to remove 2FA. Regardless, I'm open to whatever option requires the least inconvenience on others! Best, --auburnpilot's sock 21:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think it's just me concerned with moving the access. Moving access is certainly the easier option, and there is clear consensus here for that to happen. But I still feel that account security issues should be handled by the people who are paid to handle account security issues, rather than decided by a vote of 15 people with limited access to the information required to make an informed comment on the situation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• @AuburnPilot: would you please open a phab ticket to request a 2FA disabled, reference this conversation. Should it be delayed or refused, access moving is still on the table. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Done (phab:T180654). --auburnpilot talk 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: 2FA disabled. --auburnpilot talk 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Done @AuburnPilot: as there has been plenty of time and you have successfully recovered your account I've restored your prior +sysop bit, the move is no longer needed. @Ajraddatz: and @Cyp: your process points are important, but I think they are bigger than enwiki. Other then phab:T85706 a meta: discussion may be the place to drive this forward, as it is a global issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  I'm a bit late responding here, but filing a phab ticket has been standard practice for people who lose access to their account because of 2FA since it was introduced. I suppose I could add it to the Meta 2FA help page, or start a discussion if it would be controversial suggestion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz: From a technical point of view that is all that can be done, from a policy and process there are gaps, lack of direction on the help pages etc; and the bigger question of what is expected to be presented to have this task done. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I'll have some conversations with the technical staff responsible for this and see what they think. Ideally there should be a policy page on Meta that gives more detail on access, use, and what to do when things go wrong than the help pages gives. Depending on their workflow for determining if the owner is still in control of the account, it might even be possible for a disableoathauth right to be added in the front-end interface for dealing with this sort of thing. I'll let you know once I've done some fact-finding. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I dropped the sysop bit for a while and this automatically removed 2FA (which is not enabled for ordinary users). So all that's actually needed if this happens again I think is to desysop, gain access to the account and request resysop, then set up a new 2FA. That's what happened for me, anyway. The original 2FA token was no longer usable. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: removing a group from a single project should not deactivate your global 2FA setting. Are you sure this is what happened? When was it? I can go test on test2 later to see if it is a bug. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty confident, yes - but I have no advanced rights anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI - I just went through the entire process with my alt account User:Xaosflux_ep via test2wiki: Made it an admin; had it enroll in 2FA; removed admin access :: 2FA did not get removed based on this change. The account was still able to unenroll using the normal process. 2FA is 'enabled' for all users, but 2FA 'enrollment' is not available for all users. @JzG: the symptom you reported is unexpected. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Guess I'm special :-) Guy (Help!) 17:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#November 2017

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

1. Ericorbit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Perceval (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Tristanb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It might be worth looking at this recent discovery Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tell me if I may update or edit how an user presents non-English Wikipedia related information on ENWP? (the part that is collapsed) as their is allegedly an admin who made no admin actions for like ten years and only 50 admin actions in their 12 years as an admin. They also had an Rfa in the early days when times were different. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Current policy dictates that the metric used for inactivity-removal of administrator status is edits, not admin actions. Changing that is a policy discussion, nothing the 'crats can do. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: from the admin policy "Administrators who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped" (emphasis mine). So making at least one edit or administrative action in the last year is sufficient to retain adminship. Actions and edits on other projects are not considered here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, fair point, I guess it would be theoretically possible for an admin to pose admin actions but have no edits, however implausible that is. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Current examples: User:J.smith , User:Friday , User:Rjd0060 . — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow okay, I figured it was barely plausible for an admin to be doing deletions but no edits but it seems I was wrong and it's actually a thing that happens sometimes! Then the edit nor admin actions part of the policy is fully justified I guess. Thanks for the enlightenment! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: as this user is currently active I'm not seeing any policy based reason for us to take action. If you would like to propose a new admin activity requirement (e.g. "at least 10 logged administrative actions per year") then as Salvidrim! mentioned above, this would require a community disucssion (RfC). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)