Hello, Wikipedia's bureaucrats,
I didn't think I'd be back here so soon but there has been a bit of a kerfuffle over my RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz) regarding the vote count. The archived RfA says 200 support votes but some editors say that one or more support votes were disallowed because they came from sockpuppets. To be honest, I haven't gone through the entire crat discussion to see if this is true and have not seen a diff verifying this to be the case.
What I'm asking is for a simple verification of what your understanding is of the final disposition of this candidacy. If it was 198 or 199 supports, that's fine but could the RfA be corrected to reflect this fact? If there were just suspicions of sock-puppetry occurring but no votes were thrown out, could you verify that fact instead?
I have no desire to stir up what ended up being a controversial adminship discussion but the vote total seems to be the subject of dispute and so I would like the archived RfA page to reflect what exists on other pages (like Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX). Thank you for taking a moment to clarify this matter, it's appreciated. LizRead!Talk!19:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The RfA was closed with 200 support votes. At the bottom you can see "Please don't modify it". There was indeed one sockpuppet that was blocked after the scheduled end of the RfA (User:Spaghetti07205), but now the RfA stands as is. WP:SOCKSTRIKE is used to get a clearer view of on-going discussions, it's not usually used in closed/archived ones. Kraxler (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Kraxler above is correct - there were 200 supports at the time when WJBscribe sent your RfA to a bureaucrat chat. It doesn't matter that the sock was blocked, for that occurred after WJBscribe's edit - you had 200 in support and trying to argue otherwise is silly and a waste of time (and yes, you can be included on WP:RFX200). Acalamari20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
So, the answer is yes but no? ;-) I care less about the exact total than settling a minor editing dispute so thank you, Kraxler and Acalamari. I gather now that if sockpuppets are discovered, the votes are removed prior to the RfA closing and archived pages are not altered later.
I hope this puts the matter to rest but on Wikipedia, one never knows. As for Floquenbeam's suggestion, I'll leave that MfD to others to file! LizRead!Talk!21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
How truly pathetic to be so desperate to be included on a list. The page itself clearly states "ideally excluding sock puppets" but if anyone is so keen to be included on a list to which they are not entitled then so be it. The sock puppet was confirmed before the promotion was decided. SagaciousPhil - Chat05:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I do consider myself to be productive - but in the area of content which I can see is of no importance here. I have no intention of wasting further time or energy on this nonsense. SagaciousPhil - Chat05:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I doubt you will get a definitive answer to your question from the bureaucrats, as we only evaluate RfAs for the existence of a consensus to promote a user to administrator, not to determine whether it should be included in a list such as the one you mention. I would suggest focussing your attention somewhere more productive rather than thinking about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp05:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Deskana:, I had already moved on and had stopped thinking about this until I was pinged. It was a minor editing dispute and since it involved my RfA, I sought guidance from the bureaucrats who were responsible for its closure. I don't understand Phil's interest in the matter. I considered my request addressed yesterday and am surprised to find it still the subject of discussion. I consider the matter closed. LizRead!Talk!12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of an RfA should officially be recorded as what it was when the Bureaucrats made the decision to accept or archive the request. To do otherwise may give the impression that the request was accepted or rejected based on a percentage of supports or opposes beyond the usual thresholds. Socks may not be uncovered for months or even years afterwards. And too, the arguments of editors later found to be sockpuppets can be persuasive in their advocacy. So the fact is that the opinions of socks are counted, and should be recorded, as imperfect as that may be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Inactive administrators
Resolved
The following admins are due for procedural revocation of sysop rights:
Bureaucrats cannot remove Bureaucrat user-right, only add it. Requests need to be made to stewards (I think!). As for Rkitko, I am restoring that talk page, but until he has been away for 1 year, or unless he requests removal of sysop right, it should remain under current rules. WormTT(talk) 14:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We're awaiting technical support for the bureaucrat activity table and then activity requirement notices will be sent. So the grace period is still ongoing. –xenotalk14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, everyone. A routine bot-post on my talk page has brought to my attention changes in the resysoping policy. I know I sound like a broken record, but I continue to make read-only use of my admin flag throughout my research; and broken record'ly also, returning in any capacity is never precluded.
...So, since having taken my extended (-extended) sabbatical here, every annually-or-so, I would write some version of the above, and usually within less than a day or so, a bureaucrat would automatically either, if late resysop, or if early, un-desysop, me. Well, this time I'm early! What I'm getting at is: if the most recent changes to the resysop policy somehow resulted in effectively removing this (auto-confirm) flexibility from bureaucrats' discretion, please let me know. Undiplomatically put: I'm more than happy to perform a few admin maintenance tasks if it is deemed necessary, but note that that would be a symbolic gesture only, because if given a choice, my priority at this time, is to spend that time doing research (to make clear, a motivation which entirely born of my own present-circumstances and is in no way a comment on anything here whatsoever).
Anyway, as always (and longwindedly, for once!), much, much love to all my friends and colleagues, El_C21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what's going on here, but with only about 250 active admins, we can't afford to lose a good one. Can we hold off on this in case it can be sorted out? Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The short description is that User:Reguyla has been unblocked, apparently from what I can tell without prior notice of Floquenbeam, who seems to have issued the last block on that account, and Floquenbeam, well, objects. And, although I am not at all sure my word should count for much here, I would very sincerely urge the bureaucrats involved to put off any action on this request, at least for a few days. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla has been unblocked without any community discussion or consensus by an admin who !voted to overturn his ban in the last quite comprehensive community discussion. --NeilNtalk to me18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not a child; I'm capable of deciding whether or not I want the sysop bit. Please do me that final courtesy, at least. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, hopefully the emerging consensus on AN to indef and ban Kumioko/Reguyla (after the failed attempt to unblock with strict conditions) will make you rethink your decision. I'm sure Worm That Turned would feel infinitely sorry that their mostly unilateral and possibly mistaken decision (albeit made with good intentions) has lead to your departure from the administrative side of the project. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Just for purposes of absolute clarification, am I right in understanding that if and when (please, let it be when) Floquenbeam returns he can have his admin privileges restored at request? John Carter (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: Aww, man, this displeases me greatly. I've been on the fence on Kumi's situation for some time now. This unblock was unexpected, but the quick reblock, sadly, wasn't. Please reconsider. You're more valuable to the community as an admin than an observer standing on the sidelines. Anyway, whatever your decision, I wish you the best. —DoRD (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, can we please take the Reguyla situation to either ANI or ArbCom, and can everybody please email Floquenbeam to let him know Reguyla is blocked and that the situation is being handled and sanctioned. After losing Malik Shabazz so recently, I can't bear to see another of our very best admins depart in a similar mix-up. Softlavender (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Just leaving a note here (so that this is archived along with the desysop request) that I've deactivated Floq's UTRS account. It can be reactivated by myself or another tooladmin at the click of a button if Floq is ever resysopped. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion has demonstrated that the RfA close was within policy. That it may have also been within policy for the closing Crat to decide they might have been able to exercise discretion is an interesting discussion, but doesn't change the first point. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
With all due respect to the bureaucrats, I think that the way this was closed was a mistake (though I may be biased as I did !vote support). The RFA was close to the traditional discretionary range and many, many opposes were pointed out as being very weak. I believe it should have not been closed as unsuccessful without at crat chat, or at least some kind of closing summary. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
After reading through the discussions, I saw no consensus to promote at this time. I also didn't see anything controversial about that decision given the various discussions in the RfA, so I didn't see a need to add more explanation to the close. As you said, it was close to the traditional discretionary range, but I did not see enough support in the discussion to outweigh the opposition. Therefore, it was closed as no consensus to promote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Just my two cents - I agree with you that there should have been some kind of explanation as to how things were assessed/weighted, but do you honestly feel as though consensus was reached considering all of the lengthy discussions? Wisdom89(T / C)20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
67% is nowhere near the discretionary range, and the trend of many supporters moving to neutral and oppose, and new opposers outnumbering new supporters, shows that the more recently raised concerns weighed heavier than many early support !votes unaware of the problems. The closure was correct, a crat chat was unnecessary in this case. Kraxler (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, it was 73.5%! Are you saying that the discretionary range is different for prolific content creators than those who, say, work on vandalism or AfDs? LizRead!Talk!22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Here we go again with these claims that prolific content creators should be held to a different standard as the rest of Wikipedia's editors. I just fixed a thousand places where "the the" was used instead of "the" (It has to be done by hand and each one double checked because of things like our article on The The and the 2001 CD by Elliot Ingber titled "The The The The".) I have over two thousand left to check, and then I am off to the next error. Just about every error I fix was put there by a content creator. We Wikignomes clean up the errors made by content creators. We revert vandalism that would otherwise destroy the content the content creators create. We volunteer at WP:DRN, putting up with a lot of abuse so we can settle content disputes and the content creators can do their work without being constantly reverted. Is it too much to ask that the discretionary range for content creators and the the discretionary range for wikignomes be the same? We already get massive downvoting when one of us runs for administrator. (And yes, I did insert an error on purpose just now. Did you catch it?) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
So, you contend that fixing a trivial grammatical error -- which would almost automatically be ignored by the majority of readers, or, at worst, met by "Huh, look, there's a 'the the' here" -- provides the equivalent benefit to Wikipedia as writing new content? I do both, so I'm not particularly biased for or against either, but there's no way that fixing "the the" is equal to a new article, or expanding an old article. If 'gnoming is how you choose to help the encyclopedia, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't go around crying when people assess it -- in their opinions -- as less beneficial than other modus operandi. I think you should consider removing the chip from your shoulder. BMK (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If consensus was interpreted through the lens of policy then I can certainly imagine a different ending. However discretion is just that, discretion. HighInBC21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There was another issue arising from the RfA. Some editors felt that bureaucrats should be prohibited from nominating candidates at RfA. I personally think that is preposterous, but it merits a discussion here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not a 'crat (any more), but the thing about being "close to the traditional discretionary range" is that it's out of the discretionary range. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
My point is that if you discount a large number of baseless oppose votes, it's quite possibly in the discretionary range. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Discounting votes is, in itself, an act of discretion. You can't double-dip on it to bump something up to discretionary range and *then* exercise more discretion on it. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the bureaucrats certainly could do that, in an appropriate case. If a hypothetical RfA were pushed from 74% to 67% by a dozen opposes that read "oppose, candidate has red hair" or "oppose, candidate likes classical music rather than rock 'n' roll" (or vice versa) or "oppose, no portal talk edits on Wednesdays during Lent," I trust that the bureaucrats would (1) discount the silly !votes and then (2) figure out the outcome. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the 'crats ought to do in this RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
discreet as always, NYB Sure, I guess you'd have to define the term "baseless". Myself, I'd usually define it--as used in this specific context--as "based on a premise that is factually wrong". Like, for example, if people were to oppose saying "this user is 13", and then it was shown that, no, the user in question is actually 35, then that might be baseless enough to disregard without needing discretion. But simply not liking the basis on which votes are founded does not necessarily make them baseless. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I would go one step farther than you. Suppose an RfA had 100 total !votes in it: 65 supports lauding the candidate to the skies for a wide range of qualifications and a long record of good contributions and supporting him or her without reservation, and 35 opposes based on the candidate's being age 15 and absolutely nothing else. If that ever happened, I might well call on the 'crats to chat and to close the RfA as successful despite the numbers. But I agree that that is not this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would, because even though I don't necessarily agree with the premise that age should be a barrier to becoming admin, it's not so out there as to be called "baseless". Though I don't think you were trying to imply this, "opposing because they're 15" is not equivalent to "opposing because they have red hair". Lots of things are age-restricted, and reasonably so: notably, for the purposes of this discussion, the CU/OS rights on Wikipedia (source: Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside). I might not agree that such a barrier is necessary for simple admin rights, but I can't honestly say that it's completely ridiculous and unworthy of consideration that others think so. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If I were designing Wikipedia and RfA from scratch, that would be a discussion we could have. But there have been so many relatively younger editors who passed RfA, often unanimously or nearly so, whose ages or at least youthfulness were known at the time, and who were or are doing a perfectly sound job of adminship, that for a particular RfA to be suddenly derailed on such a basis would strike me as exceedingly unfair to the candidate. (That said, this remains a hypothetical case, and I'm not sure how much more there is to say here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In this particular instance, if the 'crats has decided to deprecate oppose votes which were based totally on age, I would hope that they would have extended the RfA, since the recent tide of changes from support to oppose or neutral was not based primarily on age, but on other issues altogether, which reflected on the character and behavior of the candidate. Given the recent trend was downward, a move such as deprecating age-related oppose votes, which would push the percentage up significantly, would need to be offset by the possibility that, given additional time, more editors would have changed their votes for reasons other than the age issue. BMK (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Seven+ days is plenty of time to make your (valid) case.
There was a late swing driving the percentage down. The late swinging votes were introducing solid information in support. If there were more time, I would have reviewed my !vote. It was a good close. If the Thine Antique Pen is a good candidate, he will run again successfully next year. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As the close isn't actually going to change as result of this discussion, and much of the discussion is just rehashing previous arguments, I've drafted User:NE_Ent/Tropes for folks to use as desired. NE Ent02:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that I would probably have given little if any weight to "pure age" opposes, of which I count roughly a dozen (indeed, at least one opposer made it clear they were opposing solely on age and had not reviewed the candidate's contributions). I don't think it's appropriate for a small group of participants to introduce policy (in this case, an age restriction for adminship) by the back door. If editors want such a restriction, they should start an RfC and build a consensus for it. That said, there was also considerable opposition on the basis of lack of maturity and experience, which was supported by examples and reasoned argument. Combined with the other issues raised by the opposition, I still do not think there was a consensus to promote even if the "pure age" opposes were discounted altogether. WJBscribe(talk)09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually there were significantly more than a dozen such opposes. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 51, and several which refer to supporting editors whose votes were age-based. 24 votes out of 58 appear to relate directly and primarily to "too young." Collect (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is also the issue that the editors age wasn't disclosed by them. They were outed from suppressed information and indirectly from another admin who made a public comment which they shouldn't have. Mkdwtalk13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: With all due respect, I think it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved administrator or crat to close this discussion. Whether the discussion will result in anything or has been posted in the wrong place is a secondary issue. One that I don't necessarily disagree with, however, when you say things like "silly" it de-legitimizes the concerns other editors have brought forth and arguably shows a bias to the outcome of the discussion. You withdrew your support in the RFA. If you feel strongly about closing it, I won't stop you a second time, but I do think process is important as well as uninvolved. Mkdwtalk12:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Collect is incorrect in my case, #6, in which I originally and in an addition mention concerns beyond age. Jusdafax13:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The "oppose" number 6 was initially clear: "It's simple: mid-teens, even if "mature" (however one defines the word) should not be Wikipedia admins, which seems to me to be an oppose based primarily and substantially on age. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (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 request
As the user who was the account target of the block that sparked this discussion, I am closing this. The block was a mistake, it was immediately reverted upon discovery, and it was appropriately taken care of. No action is required. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)11:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
13:00, 8 October 2015 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Oshwah (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->)
'crats cannot remove the crat user right at all, that would be a steward request. Arbcom would be the right place to go to get that ratified. But this may just be a mistake - looking into it now. WormTT(talk) 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I have explained to the user concerned, I intended to block a vandal whose edit they had reverted and accidentally blocked them instead. WJBscribe(talk)13:14, 8 October 2015 (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.
"weight of argument" should be used or not used in closing RfAs.
Whether arguments which are related to information which we are officially barred from asking as questions of editors should be given weight or no weight in an RfA discussion (I understand age, gender, gender preference, religion, nationality, ethnicity etc. are topics which one may not reasonably ask of an editor - correct me if I am wrong).
whether consideration should be given to specifically assigning greater or lesser weight where an RfA has been discussed on sites outside the direct purview of Wikipedia (including IRC discussions, blog discussions etc.).
This appears to be almost the "perfect storm" for such a case as all three elements I suggest should be discussed did appear to be salient to this RfA. Collect (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hope nobody minds my weighing in as a non-crat and frequent RFA opposer. Bureaucrats shouldn't weight arguments on either side unless an RFA is in that community-accepted 70-75% discretionary range. Outside that, oppose rationales should not be expected to be particularly comprehensive or forceful. Unfortunately, certain 'crats like WJBScribe (see his post in the topic above) categorically reject this premise, and as a result opposers sometimes err toward being loquacious assholes so their opposes will fully count, which results in RFA being the unpleasant gauntlet we all know and love. Townlake (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that RFA was not meant to be a straight vote, no? And RFAs have passed at under 70%. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
They have. The statement on WP:RFA is "Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to bureaucratic discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion." WormTT(talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I read your position as "never assign weight even if the number of improper votes is greater than the number to effect a different result." In the case at hand, I read about 40% of the "opposes" (24/58) as being specifically and primarily directed at age, where there is no basis for saying that we can demand "proof of age" for an admin any more than we can ask "what gender are you?" and "what is your education level?" or "are you gay?" or the like. So on that basis, I think I would demur with your response. Of course, the community absolutely can formally impose age limits on admins, but I do not find any record of such a proposal gaining past approbation. Collect (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC) (note: Anyone of any age may edit articles or register. Wikipedia does not even require that users disclose their age when registering! seems apropos here. Coppa states: (1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for an operator of a website or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection WMF sets a minimum age for Arbs on the basis of confidential materials - not on the basis of judgement ) Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If we put aside the age question for a second I am left with one question: "Is it reasonable for people to oppose someone based on private information that was improperly leaked which had nothing to do with behavioural issues, and is it reasonable to give such an oppose significant weight?"
This is a case where private information was leaked about the candidate. This information did not in any way reflect poor judgement from the candidate, just their private circumstances(private info like age, gender, nationality, religion etc). Opinions on age aside, this information poisoned this RfA and I think it should have been taken into account, just like sock puppetry or canvassing would be taken into account.
This candidate had their private info leaked and then used against them. Then when it was time to determine consensus these opinions based on private info were seemingly given significant weight.
If we had improperly leaked information that would be a valid concern, but when the user themselves revealed that information I don't think we can call it improperly leaked. -- GBfan19:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the original edits were, but the comment that was found and mentioned in the !vote in the RFA was put in place before the disclosure was oversighted. So who improperly leaked the info? -- GBfan22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I know what was oversighted and when. I also know what wasn't oversighted and when it was introduced. The timeline is important. The information was introduced by TAP (under a different username). The comment that was introduced into the RFA to support their age was made on the old user talk page. Finally the original disclosure was oversighted. The comment should have been oversighted at the time also but it was missed. What I would like to know is who you think improperly leaked the info? -- GBfan17:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not attempting to lay blame or suggest that any editor acted inappropriately, that is a much murkier issue. My concerns is that the information was private information and that private information should not be a valid basis for an argument against a person. The fact that one mention of their age was oversighted demonstrates that it was a privacy issue. The fact that a repetition of the information on a talk page was not oversighted does not make it cease to be private information. HighInBC17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood the post above where you said "private information that was improperly leaked" and thought you were saying someone leaked information that was private. Thank you for clarifying what you were talking about. -- GBfan17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the RfA discussion page, if the Request for Adminship process is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote, then arguments should not be weighed on individual opinions in order to alter how they are counted, as this is still a voting process. Whether or not a given argument has consensus support of the community should be evaluated, and the relative weight of each argument determined. In other words, lay out the pros and cons, determine by consensus the relative importance of each, and then see if the advantages outweigh the negatives. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As a relatively newer bureaucrat, I've been seeking some clarification as to exactly what the community understands our role in the RfA process to be and what specific mandates we have been given in the past. Remember, the bureaucrat's authority at RfA is entirely dependent on the Wikipedia:Administrators policy. If the community wishes bureaucrats to take a more involved role in "policing" RfA (rather than determining the consensus result), it should be explicitly written in to Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator so there is some policy-based reason for our acts. The RfA process also has no separate policy or guideline surrounding it, it is perhaps time to implement one. –xenotalk22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully not. Traditionally the bureaucrats have been perceived and respected as low drama, no drama, boring -- well, bureaucrats -- who faithfully execute the will of the community / arbcom without letting their personal opinions (rarely can we tell if they actually have any) interfere with their dedication. This is important as these are the folks with the hands on the sysop / desysop switch. Policing Rfas will always be a gray area quagmire, and asking the BN community to get sucked into that will inevitably tarnish that reputation. NE Ent02:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If this is the feeling of the wider community, then bureaucrats are the judges, not the referees, of the boxing match that is RFA and the community needs to be reminded that they should provide the referees so the bureaucrats can remain impartial as judges. –xenotalk11:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Xeno the admin policy already says the RfA is determined by consensus and not a vote. The consensus policy says that Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
While practice may differ from policy, the actual wording of policy does require that the arguments given on various sides of the issue have their quality ascertained through the lens of policy. I don't think this is what is being done though. If AfDs were closed like RfAs then we would count I like it votes with equal weight as strong policy based reasoning. HighInBC14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no comment on the merits of this discussion. However, unless the crats want it here, wouldn't it be better to move it to the Talk page? Normally, there aren't that many posts to this board, and generally they have to do with resysopping, desysopping, and other substantive matters involving the crats. Now there's so much activity here I feel like I've walked into a partial clone of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, which, at least from my personal point of view, is not a place I enjoy visiting.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't belong on the talk page.
I don't think any of my fellow bureaucrats mind hosting this discussion here, but our participation at RfA is at the pleasure of the community. A discussion about how bureaucrats are/should be handling RfXs could be held here or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators, as this is currently the governing policy for us using our technical ability to add the sysop userright (or indeed, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but please draw our attention to any consensus result). –xenotalk17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, either that or grey it out and mark it as "historical". Removing it all together gives a different impression. WormTT(talk) 08:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Misunderstood the template, which I don't use, it's not a stats template at all, it's a "what needs to be done" template. Anyway, Xeno's below answer is right. WormTT(talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No, because bureaucrats still perform renames if they are global renamers. Also USURP can only be tended by local bureaucrats as there is no global usurpation policy. –xenotalk11:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Chaps. I've just become aware of this page and haven't read it in detail yet. I wondered whether we ought to be involved individually, see if we can compose a group response that we can all agree with (I know, I'm an optimist) or whether we felt that we should keep a watching brief? Totally open-minded. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I had a read this morning. I'm an advocate of reform but I don't think that RfC is going to go anywhere as it's far too much of a free-for-all at the moment. That said, I'm interested in the idea of a group response that we could agree on - not so much for this RfC, but more that we could actually lead some reform as a group in the future. WormTT(talk) 11:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with a group response on RfA reform at any time in any venue. We're too passive - albeit for good reason - and RfA can be a horror show, yet I'm sure we're all passionate about improving it. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I am an admin that was less active in the last year, and hence got provisionally suspended. If possible I would like to request re-adminship. Please let me know if there are any actions I would need to take beyond this request. Many thanks :) Chris 73 | Talk15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi welcome back. I'm feeling a bit rusty, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think we agreed to wait at least 24 hours from a Crat saying "looks OK", before granting the mop back, in case someone has good grounds for objecting. So, from my perspective, looks OK. Hopefully, we'll switch you back on in a day. --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The candidate in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamaguchi先生 is not active so has been unable to respond to questions. His editing pattern indicates that he doesn't edit weekends, and perhaps he didn't consider the significance of that when the RfA started. Or perhaps he is ill or unable to get online. We don't know. But folks are starting to vote oppose based on that. As he is not available to respond to concerns, and we don't really know why, would it be appropriate to suspend the RfA over the weekend? SilkTork✔Tea time10:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd say not. If he is unavailable, he can address those opposes when he gets back, and if he has decided to not respond, the voters can take that into account. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Per Worm and further the candidate does not appear to edit regularly on weekends as per Timecard and after going through Yamaguchi's contributions during the last month shows the editor does not edit on weekends and it does appear to be his/her normal editing pattern .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal appears to be familiar with the candidate. (as noted here). The length of absence is beginning to appear abnormal. You may want to re-evaluate this. — Ched : ? 19:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Acalamari, putting aside my own surprise, is there precedent for having a non-administrator with CheckUser privileges? Regardless of the answer, is that what Tiptoety actually wants?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser requires passing an RfA (or being elected to ArbCom, although the latter has never happened without the former). Tiptoety passed an RfA -- my understanding or the letter of the policy is that resigning the sysop bit doesn't require also resiging as a Checkuser. I don't think there is an existing precendent. Of course, Tiptoety's wishes may lean that way anyways, I'm just answering your first question. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉00:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I believed that there indeed was someone who resigned sysop but kept CU/OS flag(s) for a while. I can't remember who it is at the moment though so I can be wrong. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Pursuant to this, I've deactivated Tiptoety's UTRS account, and also requested to our dev to remove the CU flag. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉19:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Compromised accounts
Account compromised. Please desysop. Login details for millions of accounts from various data breaches have been readily available in the public domain for months now. A small list can be seen here. If you use the same password across multiple websites including Wikipedia, your account might have already been compromised. Please force a password reset for all admin and functionary accounts across wikimedia projects immediately. Salv, sad to see an admin account with both UTRS and OTRS access using a 6 digit number as password. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉08:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Posting from another admin account to show how widespread this is. Please use a different password for your Wikipedia account, especially if you are an administrator or a functionary. WMF, at the very least consider implementing 2FA for accounts with advanced permissions. Meanwhile, desysop this one and CU other admin accounts to check for any unauthorized access. I assure you, there is no malicious intention on my part, just letting y’all know about this in the most effective way. OhanaUnited, please don't use your dob as your password - anywhere. OhanaUnitedTalk page08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have temporarily blocked these two accounts, and will desysop IAR if I see any admin actions from either. I've notified Arbcom with a view to a level 1 temporary desysop. WormTT(talk) 08:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I have desysopped both accounts. If there are consequences for not waiting for the go ahead from ArbCom so be it. My reason for desysopping straight away is that these accounts have now been exposed to the world as compromised, with information provided about their passwords and hints about how to find them. The person who did so (thanks for bringing this to our attention) does not say that they changed the passwords, which means that anyone can still log into them and (at the very least) view deleted edits, which is not acceptable. WJBscribe(talk)09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's fair enough, WJBscribe. I thought 15 minutes was fine to wait (I'd nudged the committee quite firmly!) - but I certainly support you action. As you can see Arbcom has reacted. WormTT(talk) 09:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In the future, getting a steward to globally lock the account is another option. It prevents even logging in, so no information can be leaked. --Rschen775421:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that when we last had a crop of compromised accounts (4 back in May 2007 as I recall), the developers ran a password cracker over all admin accounts to identify those with weak passwords. It sounds like we should do that again. I also think we should consider sending a talkpage message (and possibly email) to every admin reminding them of the need for a secure password, and asking them to change their password to one they do not use on other websites. WJBscribe(talk)10:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've dropped Maggie a line about the password cracker idea, happy to take point on that if someone else can follow up on the reminders. WormTT(talk) 10:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I would argue against running a cracker on the password file. It's a personal privacy breach and poor security protocol. After a breach like this a better plan would be to expire the Wikipedia passwords and require strong password replacements. It's never a good idea to create the very index that hackers want to see especially if the concern is multi-site that WP can't control (i.e. Wikipedia secures an admin account by exposing his bank account). It would be rather embarrassing as well as a liability if Wikipedia's crack program exposed editors third-party passwords in any fashion, even internally. --DHeyward (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a personal privacy issue. A password is revealed to Wikipedia when you create an account with it, it is not private information. If the same party you revealed it to attempts to guess it for their internal security that is not an invasion of your privacy, it is the organization protecting itself. I think you will find it a fairly common practice for anyone with advanced permissions to have their password audited in most organizations. HighInBC15:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If you have to run a cracker on it, it's private. If the concern is that it's used in multiple places, it's private. It should be treated much more guarded than a SPI investigation and checkuser logs. The assertion is that they are used in more than one place. If you're concerned that "JohnDoe" used the same password at his bank that he used at Wikipedia, it is not helping by finding his clear text password and just fixing the Wikipedia account. It's exposure that need not happen. Dragging out the password file is asking for trouble when there are ways to correct the problem that don't involve cracking. Auditing is important as well.--19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
How about a forced new system which won't accept a password if it does not contain atleast one "caps" word and one "number" with no less than 8 characters...simple solution no?--Stemoc10:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stemoc: Note that those requirements (Capital, digit, lower case + weird character, 8 minimum) are not really the strongest type of passwords, you end up with passwords like: Banana1! (the location of capital, number and character are often the same), besides that those passwords are harder to remember (causing people to write them down somewhere). Strong passwords are easy to remember but lengthy. Using a sentence or set of random words is optimal (bananacookietablecoffeeexception, 5 words to remember for you, but difficult to crack due to length). Basvb (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Where do you think I got it from? However a minimum length for passwords is a good idea, I just created an account with "1" as password, that is a bit too short imo. Basvb (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of WMF trying to brute-force the password hashes, as they did before. However, let's remember the problem on this occasion is not the short passwords per se, but using the same password elsewhere. A request to change your password again, for this was done relatively recently, should really stress this point. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
All the password complexity requirements in the world aren't going to jack when you use the same password elsewhere, and Adobe someone flubs it due to poor database security and security design. 2FA should be mandatory for all advanced permissions holders, and optionally available to anyone else that wants to use it. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC).
Tbf, its not like their "wikipedia" accounts were hacked, no need to strengthen the WMF servers just because both users used the same pass for their wiki as well as for another site where the hacking was carried out...As of now, all i can recommend is for all Canada based users to change their passwords as both users were from canada so it was something they both are part of in canada which was hacked--Stemoc11:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe another approach would be to require all admins to certify: (i) that they have a password that meets certain minimum complexity requirements; and (ii) that the password is not used for anything else. It could be understood that if the certification proves untrue, accounts will be permanently desysopped and admins will need to pass a fresh RfA to regain them. A page could be created for admins to signs within a period of time (say 2 months) for admins to sign the page. After 2 months, admins who haven't signed would be temporarily desysopped until they sign up. Is that going too far? WJBscribe(talk)11:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't say I like that idea, it seems very reactionary - when it comes down to it, there's only so much damage an admin can do. This was dealt with quickly, and would have been dealt with even faster if there had been any visible abuse of the admin tool. There's a big difference between recommending a course of action and enforcing one in this manner. The last thing I want to do is discourage people from signing up to be an admin, and something like that might. WormTT(talk) 11:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur: hackersthieves and vandals who get passwords are fair more likely to be going after banks and online vendors that Wikipedia, and only admins who have been declared their real world identification would be vulnerable even if their password was in the wild. Do we know if wikimedia software detects multiple failed login attempts? NE Ent 11:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC) updatedNE Ent12:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, there is ratelimiting preventing login if you fail to login for few times from given IP address for a given period of time. I don't remember the specific rules, though. — regards, Revi12:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I just saw the note on AN. For what it's worth, on other sites where I have been an admin or mod, we ran password cracking utilities and any staff member that came up positive got 2 days to change it. If they didn't, they would be banned until a) they told us they changed it and b) a crack was unsuccessful. Standard procedure, if you ask me. I would recommend anyone who comes up with a bad password to be identified by email, NOT talk page (the last thing you want is people looking and thinking "ooh, easy admin account to crack!") As for "there's only so much damage an admin can do" - well I don't think there's any technical reason an admin can't unblock JarlaxleArtemis or undelete any amount of G10 attack pages so they can be copypasted elsewhere on the net, and while no admin would normally do that, a compromised account who doesn't care about desysopping much is like a bull in a china shop and can scare editors away really quickly, who'll then require some serious diplomacy to win back. Mind you, think of how much damage a compromised 'crat or steward account can do! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The real danger is in unlogged actions. A compromised admin account could quietly read deleted content that may compromise privacy and nobody would ever notice. As an admin I see deleted private info ranging from names to credit card numbers before oversight gets to it. We can't assume that a compromised admin account would be evident. HighInBC15:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Both accounts seem to be globally locked. Anyways, one of them was a crat on Wikispecies, and an ORTS member. That is terrible. But even brute force won't help if the password is strong by itself, but used on another side with a security leak. Those cases of bad security will most likely not be found out until it is too late.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
2FA is the obvious solution that most environments serious about security have already implemented. Wikipedia has taken the "just good enough" approach to security long enough. We used to not even use SSL on the login page. Add the option to upload a PGP public key and require that a simple challenge be passed on each login. You simple encrypt a random string to the user's key and demand that they repeat the decrypted version back. Simple to program and incredibly effective. HighInBC15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever it is, I take a moment to commend the work done by the unknown third party who has faithfully notified BN about this. Whoever you are, if you are seeing this, Wikipedia appreciates your work and is in debt. Thanks—UY ScutiTalk17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
EMail Many admins are not even email enabled as it not required by policy .Hence no email can be sent even in situations like this. User:OhanaUnited does not appear to have enabled the email option (He could have one without the Enable email from other users option in preferences which I do not know). Now if checkuser information is not available and without email access it may became complicated to confirm. Do think every admin should have email even if for privacy or harassment they do not allow users to email them by not choosing Enable email from other users option.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
However, they are an OTRS agent, and that is linked to an e-mail address, so that could be a way to possibly verify identity. They also have a committed identity key. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
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 Salv, from an alt. I have successfully gotten a password reset but until my account is no longer globally locked, I cannot login with the temporary password in order to change it to a new random (longer this time) string I've had at least one arb text me and I'd be more than happy to speak with anyome anywhere on the phone or elsewhere if someone needs more confirmation. I'm off to work now but I'll comment morr at length on Wikipedia security as soon as I have some time to sit down and collect my thoughts. Salvidrim (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If the Arb who you are in contact with can email me to confirm they are happy you are in control of your account via WP (or any other Steward) then someone will unlock your account. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Arb in question (DQ, if you must know) may not be available quickly, so I've e-mailed the stewards list and remain available to confirm my identity with any other available arbitrator. The only one who could currently access the Salvidrim! account (if it wasn't globally locked) would be myself, with the temporary password I've had reset and which is sitting in my e-mail. I can't take of a better way to prove it than with my sweet, angelic face (it's been a rough morning). :) Salvidrim (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've unblocked - feel free to serve seafood if I've done this out of process, but I think a steward's confirmation and global unlock should be okay, right? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just chatting to Salvidrim off wiki to double check - would rather he'd have confirmed he was back in control (he couldn't reset the password due to the locked account) before we did it, but I'm sure we'll be fine and he'll shout out if he doesn't get control back. WormTT(talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks... I guess? ;) I can confirm I am back in control of my account and have obviously changed the password for something that is more in line with my current personal-password-policy. The next step is for ArbCom to give their greenlight as far as resysopping goes, and then I'll have to get my UTRS and OTRS accounts reactivated (they were shut down preventively but they already had different passwords anyways). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉15:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It would suck even more if ArbCom said this was a cloud desysop and you could only get it back through an RfA. That would be icing on the cake. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
This has happened before. If I remember correctly that bit was not automatically given back due to failure to secure their admin account. I am not sure if this is what is going to happen this time though. HighInBC15:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Restoration of adminship only was denied when it was impossible, due to the passage of time, to verify that the person claiming to be the ex admin was in fact him. Where the identity of the person was confirmed, and of course the change to a better password was also confirmed, adminship has always been returned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Make sure you change your email passwords too. Especially if they are similar to the passwords you used on other sites. I know it's a pain, but that is a way to gain new passwords. Dave Dial (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to be creating random passwords for all of my important accounts that I usually only access on a single set of devices.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
My e-mail password is basically the key to me entire life so it's literally the most secure thing I own -- the actual password is encrypted using SHA-2 from a secret, random string that is committed to memory (took me a week of constant mnemonic training). ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Salvidrim!, it's still unclear to me how this all started and how you gained control of OhanaUnited's account. I'm asking to understand exactly what happened, why it happened now and how it might impact other admins and functionaries. LizRead!Talk!16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: What makes you say that Salvidrim! gained control of OhanaUnited's account? What appears to have occurred is that a third party gained control of both accounts and posted here to indicate that they accounts had been compromised. WJBscribe(talk)16:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Both accounts(Savidrim! and OhanaUnited) were compromised by an unidentified 3rd party who stated they did so to show that the accounts passwords were compromised. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 - Whoa Liz, I think you misunderstood something -- a third party gained access to both mine and Ohana's account due to compromised passwords. I've posted a short explanation of my understanding of what happened on my talk page (which is basically a copy of what I already answered the Steward team). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Okay, that wasn't clear to me but it makes sense. But what third party would hack into other user accounts and then come to BN to warn about this fact? Curious. LizRead!Talk!16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The third party didn't hack into the accounts, but found compromised account logins and passwords from other sites published elsewhere. They then presumably checked to see if admin accounts with the same login names here used the same passwords as at the compromised sites, and alerted the bureaucrats when they did. (At least, that's what I understand from what they said up above.) 823510731 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that is what is puzzling. Not that the third party found vulnerable accounts, it's that they chose to come to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard to warn about the vulnerability rather than cause mischief. Not exactly standard practice for your run-of-the-mill vandal.
And as much as it is important to have strong passwords, why do people have the same username on all platforms. That just makes things very easy. LizRead!Talk!17:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It is something of a tradition I guess White Hat hackers regard it as a public service to keep admins on our toes this way. As for keeping the same name on multiple sites, this does have the advantage that someone else can't grab "your" name elsewhere and misuse it. ϢereSpielChequers17:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Why would you expect them be a vandal? If I found compromised Wikipedia accounts, I'd report them too rather than using them to cause mischief. 823510731 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely the most impactful way. Just telling the affected users privately, for example, would've been quite a lot easier to sweep under the rug. Making this a public display is excellent for raising awareness and to generate real discussion towards improving security systems. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉18:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd have to have logged in to know they're compromised, so why not? As Salvidrim says, it's an impactful way of getting people to use better passwords. 823510731 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (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.
Recovery part 2
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.
Hi, this is OhanaUnited (I'm temporary using my bot account that you can verify by checking the page history). I also cannot reset the password until the main account is unblocked. My email is fine as it uses a different password than wiki. I have communicated with User:Ktr101 and confirmed with him that I will be using the bot account to post this message (Ktr101 and I met in real life and thus can confirm that I have control of the account through non-wiki channel). I also used SHA-1 (at the bottom of my userpage) that I can verify the passphrase with an ArbCom member and steward. OhanaBot (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited, OhanaBot, and Ktr101: Ohana - things are appearing to be in order, I would like to verify this is you as much as possible though, so please drop me an email to verify your passphrase, and if you have another method too, it would help to ease any worries about you not being in control of the account. Kevin - If you could please forward these, you should have my email on file, if not, drop me one, and I will reply. -- Amanda(aka DQ)07:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: I have emailed you the SHA-1 identity passphrase. To all... I read through whoever hacked my account and their supposingly "white hat" action but found some inconsistency in their story. My previous password wasn't just DOB, it is a combination of alphanumeric with 8 characters (six numbers + 2 letters). Also, they pointed out that they retrieved information from this website yet I don't use any of the websites listed (no Adobe, Sony PS3, Snapchat, etc.) and this website confirmed that my account details weren't leaked. Regardless of the strength of the password, if it's part of the leaked accounts from other websites, it would still be compromised. So yeah, I don't know where or how someone managed to snoop my password. OhanaBot (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Countless usernames, emails and plain text passwords of Wikipedia accounts are listed in the data breaches, including accounts with CU/OS permissions. One that stood out was that of a former arb and WMF staff member whose same password was listed on multiple dumps. I also came across login details for multiple emails ending with @wikimedia.org, recognized some as having developer access. FWIW, they all had mostly strong passwords, although it hardly matters if they use the same password on WP. Now, I didn’t try logging into any of these to check if they work or not. The only reason I tried logging into these two accounts is because I recognized them as familiar admin accounts which had numbers as passwords and I was convinced it wouldn’t give me access. Once it did, I only had two options, either post to BN or forget about it. Had I reported it to Arbcom or privately, it would have been swept under the rug.
For all we know, people have been accessing admin accounts with impunity for years without anyone knowing. Nothing short of a forced reset for passwords on all privileged accounts is going to solve this.
I didn’t comb through the data further nor do I intend to - but that does not mean others won't.
I have provided the info to DetlaQuad and she said she's satisfied with it. Now waiting for stewards to unlock the account. OhanaBot (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2015 (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.
Procedural desysops
If we decide to run a password cracker or send out notices, I think we should apply it to recently procedurally desysopped admin accounts as well, since they can become admins again with little effort. This is doubly important as the rightful owner is less likely to notice if their account has been compromised. — Earwigtalk22:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... I mean, I could compromise an inactive account, change the password to something strong that the rightful owner doesn't know, and then request the bit back. Running a cracker then wouldn't exactly help. I don't know; this is becoming quite beansy. Perhaps 'crats could employ a stricter set of verification criteria for allowing resysopping after inactivity, but I realize that's not always possible if the admin never revealed any personal info like an email address or committed identity. — Earwigtalk00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been working to revamp the new admin school (which was actually renamed to just "new admin"), and since you guys are the ones who direct new admins to such pages I thought I'd ask for a little input. I noticed WP:ADMINGUIDE repeats much of the info at WP:NAS, and presents it in a less-organized way. So what I'd like to do is merge everything into "new admin", as otherwise having this information fragmented like this is confusing and makes it difficult to maintain. Some things like merging page histories we're not really going to be able to provide a playground for new admins to test it out, so we're in effect stepping away from a "school" and just providing a single comprehensive reference point. Any thoughts on this matter? It's a lot of work that I'm willing to undertake but I figure I should make sure everyone is OK with it before proceeding. We might also consider a new name entirely, perhaps "admin reference"? — MusikAnimaltalk03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I helped write some of the New Admin School eight years ago (in fact, its creation stemmed from when I was a new admin in need of how to use the tools), and so I've noticed that over time parts of it have become outdated and messy. If you're willing to put in time and effort to tidy and update it, I would be extremely grateful. :) Acalamari13:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I put some effort in not too long ago to update some of the areas including new screenshots, but it could probably still do with some work. Sam Walton (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is badly outdated, I've come to find out. I think I've got the blocking and protection pages all up to speed, and I unified a user rights management section. Next I want to merge in WP:ADMINGUIDE, which is going to take a while. I also want to add a section for the basics on responding to reports at noticeboards, such as AIV, RFPP etc. I think the more comprehensive we make WP:NAS the less we'll have to "learn on the job". I know I personally made a handful of mistakes as a new admin just because I was trying to learn the ropes out on the field, as prior documentation did not exist. — MusikAnimaltalk17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines is the actual guideline, starting with being sure the user actually died. We post a request at WP:RFPP and link to the guide as here. (I didn't add the non-breaking spaces, just the request at the bottom of the diff...grumble.) On the confirmed death of an administrator, there would be a post here (and probably to the crat mail list). I wasn't aware that User:Telsa died. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER04:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Requesting desysop
Given the recommendations that have been made to me, I voluntarily lay down my adminship, recognizing that I will need to make a new request for adminship in order to have a chance at becoming an administrator again. I understand that becoming an administrator again in the future will not be automatic upon reapplication. Neelix (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In September I asked that the admin tools be removed from my account while I was travelling overseas in case anything went wrong from using shared internet connections. I've now returned home and would appreciate it if my access to the tools could be reinstated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that once you've tasted the sweet ambrosia of the admin bit, it's hard to stomach the bitter delay inherent in using RFPP and AIV and CSD as a mere mortal. While I suppose I should stay desysopped for a few months longer, to more forcefully remind myself how annoying we make it for normal editors, I just don't think I have the patience for it. Also, if this only takes 24 hours, I might be able to be the one who blocks the joker in the section above (now deleted)... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
With an ArbCom election looming, what would bureaucrats need before flipping the bit for successful non-admin candidates? Would they - and the WMF do for CU and OS purposes - regard an ArbCom election as an "RFA-identical process" and flip the bit without much thought? Would they regard the tools as an essential for the performance of arbitrator duties? Would they require a clear mandate (and if so from whom)? This is better addressed earlier than later as the assumption in some quarters that non-admins will never be elected because they don't hold the tools is a serious electoral disadvantage. FWIW, I'm dead against the idea of a post-election RFA for successful candidates because it gives the participants an opportunity to veto a much much broader community process (cf. Level of Consensus. Perhaps more to the point, how do we get clarity on this before the voting begins? Roger Daviestalk09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Personally, as I've commented elsewhere - I believe that the Arbcom election process is a higher standard of scrutiny than a standard RfA - for one thing there are more voters, more questions and guides. I also believe that any candidate who is elected to Arbcom should receive the admin bit for at least the period they are on Arbcom - to allow them to see all available evidence, not only deleted edits - but context such as how easy or difficult it might be to make a "mistake" with the tools. I think we'd need an RfC on the matter though. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we run a quick RFC so that this can be resolved before any specific personalities get involved. The decision should be independent of who is elected. JehochmanTalk10:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why Arbitrators need to be admins. I thought the whole point of having non-admins on ArbCom is to offer a different perspective? Admittedly, It might mean that a non-admin Arbitrator could only participate in some ArbCom business, but isn't that the choice of the voters who support such a candidate? If admin rights are to be granted to successful non-admin ArbCom candidates (either temporarily or permanently) without an RfA, I would like to see that endorsed by the community at an RfC. I'm not happy with the decision being made by ArbCom and/or the bureaucrats alone. WJBscribe(talk)11:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Historically, my understanding of WMF's view is that ENWP's arbcom is more than equivalent to going through an RfA, and thus sufficient from WMF's POV to make any non-admin who becomes an arb an admin. I suspect if it happens (and keep in mind that it still hasn't, and very well may not this year,) that arbcom would pass a motion sysopping whatever non-admin became an arb. Arbs require much higher levels of trust than admins do, both because of the information they have access to and their role. I don't know whether it's fully automatic anywhere and am a bit too tired to find the policy page offhand right now, but all arbs hold both CU and OS, correct? Both of which require far greater trust than +sysop. (Even if they aren't automatically made CU and OS, they control who in the community is made CU and OS - and it'd be pretty weird for someone who couldn't see deleted pages having a significant vote towards who becomes CU/OS. As pointed out above, someone acting as an arb would be pretty much cripple without the ability to review deleted revisions, etc, crippling their ability to view a lot of evidence involved in arb cases, and at the same time, an arb running an RfA would be pretty awkward. I guess the motion sysopping them could be limited to their term as an arb - but after a year or two of acting as a reasonable arb, would it really be reasonable to expect them to run through RfA after they step down? Particularly since even most ex-arbs are on functionaries still, unless I'm mistaken. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the main concerns is not being able to see deleted content, does granting Oversight to a non-administrator give the ability to see garden variety deleted (not just suppressed) content? If so that would mitigate a lot of the concerns. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Both CUs and OS can view deleted revisions, and Arbs can appoint themselves to this role under the "RFA-identical" provision, so I don't see what argument there is for them to be administrators. If they also need other admin privileges, such as IPBE or EFM, those can be added separately. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That was my line of thinking, however I have never seen a non-administrator checkuser or oversighter to verify. As I mentioned, the main concern I have seen with a non-administrator not being as effective as an Arbitrator is the inability to see deleted content, so if being a CU or OS will grant that, and being elected is an RfA identical process, as determined by the WMF, then there is no need to grant the admin bit. Especially since a portion of non-admins will certainly get votes specifically since they are not admins. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily saying Arbs shouldn't be given +sysop if they don't have it already, although I'm not convinced. But I want the community to be the ones to decide this point (when given all the facts, including that CU & OS allows users to view deleted edits). FWIW, I don't think ArbCom could just require +sysop to be added to its new non-admin members by motion - the community has never authorised it to create new sysops, much as it has never authorised bureaucrats to create new sysops without RfAs. If this is seen as a "no brainer", it should be possible to get a consensus at an RfC within the next couple of weeks (i.e. before the end of the election). A few questions that might be considered are:
Should those elected to ArbCom who are not admins be granted +sysop automatically?
Should this be temporary (for the period of their term on ArbCom) or permanent?
Should their use of +sysop be limited to ArbCom business?
+sysop is needed for OS to function properly (I believe), due to the permissions needed - although this may have changed! If need be, I can test this out, but the issue is it may not be the same as it is on here!! Mdann52 (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So that is two completely opposite answers to the same question. I don't think we have a non-sysop oversight user. If we wanted to give it a test, it could be assigned to my sock account (or another Oversight user's test account) temporarily and I (or they) would be able to tell you for certain. I think this is an important answer to have prior to any RfC on the matter. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Is Mdann52 referring to a different wiki? Enwiki's OS and CU groups have been tweaked to add 'browsearchive', 'deletedhistory' and 'deletedtext; this can be seen by looking at Special:ListGroupRights. However there would be no better way to know for sure, because no one probably does, than for an oversighter to test each of the permissions on this wiki. -- zzuuzz(talk)12:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. And thinking about it now, probably an easier way to do this would be to have, for example, my regular account (this one) desysopped temporarily to test it, rather than granting it to a sock/test account. I am good with that too. If a 'crat wants to remove my sysop flag for a few hours I can test it out today. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear. That should probably be mentioned somewhere on the ACE page, as it seems to be something that is not very well known. I am still around for a few hours if someone wants me to field test it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If oversighters and/or checkusers were also given (abusefilter-view-private) then they'd be able to "see" everything that a normal user couldn't. Kharkiv07 (T)16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Can I just confirm that non-Admins elected to ArbCom can be given OS without becoming Admins? Would there be objections to us granting them OS status? If they can and it's ok for us to do it, it certainly should be mentioned on the ACE page. I don't think the inability to block is a problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
WMF will not allow arbcom to grant CU/OS to an editor who has not passed an Rfa-like process, but they consider arbom election such a process. See discussion. NE Ent—Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
What is this strange resistance to just giving the admin bit to non-admins who get elected as arbs? It makes zero sense that we'd be comfortable with them using CU and OS, and viewing deleted content, and helping decide on who to siteban and all kinds of other restrictions, but not want them be able to protect pages and block people (the only things they still wouldn't be able to do if given CU/OS). If we don't trust someone to protect/block, then there is no way we should elect them to arbcom. Rather than try to figure out workarounds, just flip the admin bit if they get elected. Unless for some reason they don't want any particular bit, in which case do whatever they ask. In fact, wasn't there a discussion about this a year or two ago, where this is what was tentatively decided (tho it ended up not mattering)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in previous discussions, but I did make a brief comment above. To me it's a bit like supplying your elected political representative, who you would like to enact legal instruments, with handcuffs and a stun gun. If we are electing people to have that ability, that's fine, but it should be made clear. -- zzuuzz(talk)21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not bothered about giving them the tools. I mean really, they can desyop but not be made Administrator? But only if it's understood that it's permanent, it would be unfair to make them then go through an RfA. I agree with Floquenbeam, if we trust them enough to elect them to the committee with the power to ban, etc, then there should be no issue about giving them Admin status. Doug Weller (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, some voters may want to have non-admins as Arbs, because they may have a different perspective, and for some maybe because they believe that the admin bit immediately enrols the receiver into a giant anti-them conspiracy. I think a reasonable compromise would be to give Arbs the admin bit, but only for the duration of their term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller, you're assuming elected arbs get in by having the trust of the community rather than getting in because they were slightly better than the totally unpalatable choices. --NeilNtalk to me04:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
NeilN Good point. Although there isn't a specific threshold for RfA, it's quite a bit higher than the 50% +1 for the committee, so I would need to think further about this. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And I think I misunderstood something as I thought someone said you can't get CU/OS without the Admin bit. That makes a difference. Doug Weller (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disgree .One of the electoral commissioners has posted a proposal in that particular RFC hence it would be WP:INVOLVED if the electoral commission now closed it given that this is a contentious RFC.The election commission deals solely with issues relating only to that particular election in this case the 2015 Arbitration election .This is a policy change which will affect even future elections it is beyond the scope of the Election commission and only the decision of the community will stand whether it is Consensus or No consensus as is the case with any RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon:. The "good news" is that none of ArbCom, the Bureaucrats or the electoral commission (a body of 3 people consisting of the only 3 people who applied) will decide the answer to this question. The community will decide - in the normal way - at the RfC, without any of the aforementioned groups expanding their remits. The RfC can be closed by uninvolved users in good standing like any other. If there is no consensus for non-admins Arbs to receive +sysop, it will not happen. WJBscribe(talk)10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, and indeed are free to bring it to arbcom for a ruling (although you probably should wait until there is something to rule on; all of the members of the electoral commission are trying very hard to determine the consensus of the community so that we have nothing to do -- our attitude is the exact opposite of seeking more power) but the fact remains that the mandate of the electoral commission is as follows:
"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion." Source: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission
If this does go to arbcom, I would predict that the result will be them informing you that they meant what they said when they put the words "to adjudicate any disputes during the election" into the electoral commission mandate. You are, of course, free to file an arbcom case to see if my prediction is correct.
As for the issue that you keep raising about one of the electoral commissioners voting on a RfC question (they are questions, not proposals) I am not going to publicly criticize a fellow commissioner, but if that specific RfC question ends up before us I will start a discussion about recusal. The odds are that that specific RfC question will be answered by consensus at the RfC stage and that your complaint will be moot.
As for only three people applying for the electoral commission, the three who did apply are the last people that should be blamed. You were free to apply and you were free to vote against any of us and did neither. I myself reluctantly applied when I saw only two candidates, and specified that I wanted to be an alternate if another qualified candidate applied.
As for your opinion about how consensus works on Wikipedia, I believe that you have a subtle misconception. Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus tells us what to do in various situations where there is no consensus. I won't repeat the list here, but the basic principle is that if there is no consensus the status quo remains. There is no status quo regarding arbitrators who are not administrators. We cannot simply say "well, there is no consensus so we will do exactly what we did the last time a non-administrator was elected to arbcom" Someone has to decide, and that someone is the electoral commission, according to our mandate to "adjudicate any disputes during the election".
Again, I must emphasize the theoretical nature of this entire discussion. It may happen that no non-administrator gets elected. It may happen that the RfC gives us a clear consensus that we can put our stamp of approval on. It is highly probable that I will get my wish and that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate, but I cannot agree with you claim that the electoral commission will have nothing to adjudicate even if there is no consensus.
@Zzuuzz: That makes sense iff you agree with the analogy of arbcom = legislature, and admin = police. This strikes me more like providing them with handcuffs, a handgun, a police car, and access to the crime database, but hesitating to give them a taser and the key to the bathroom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Disagree... arbcom is the SCOTUS-in-bathrobes, and admins are the WP:BANHAMMER-wielding wiki-Thors. :-) Psychologically speaking at least, to the everyday editors, some of them anyways. Arb-candidates who are not admins already have a hugely steep hill to climb. Giving them 'free' perms in the form of an admin-bit (especially a lifetime one but in most psychological ways this also applies to giving them a "temporary" admin-bit for their arb-work during their arb-term only), would have a very definite impact on the arb election process. There is already a fairly large bloc of arbcom-electorate-types who refuse to vote support on any non-admins whatsoever. Auto-admin-ship will make life even tougher, because now additional people will oppose the non-admin-arb-candidates, because of the auto-admin-ship-freebie! In a way, your analogy is correct... the hypothetical non-admin arb, elected to sit on the committee, will be given CU and OS perms in order to perform their need-to-know arb-work-related tasks. But they won't be given the block-button, and will have to ask some admin to assist -- prolly an arb-clerk or another arb or somesuch. However, consider the desysop procedures: arbs are not granted a desysop-button, but have to ask a bureaucrat to actually implement the bit-removal, if I understand things correctly. So there is some precedence for this sort of arbs-decide and then others-mash-the-button. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, the German Wikipedia had some non-admins elected arbitrators. They were given the sysop bit so they could see deleted revisions etc., but were expected not to use the bit for non-Arbcom related activities. So there is even precedent for this. (And yes, all arbs should be given +sysop). —Kusma (t·c) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's not really a WP:BIGDEAL if they're granted an admin bit, but I don't see why they would need one if they are granted OS privileges, which allow them to view deleted content. Sure, they wouldn't be able to block the people they've decided to ban, but they're not technically able to desysop people they've decided to desysop, either, unless they're also a steward or bureaucrat. And not being able to flip the desysop bit hasn't really caused any problems as far as I'm aware. I guess it depends on whether people feel there's value in having actual non-admins on ArbCom, which is more of a social question than a technical one. 28bytes (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Correct, this is not a question of needing the bit to do the work, since CU+OS is sufficient, this is a question of appearances, and social standing. One view is that, in order to have all the arbs be equals, the non-admins ought to be automagically given the admin-bit upon winning an arb-seat. But methinks the correct view is that will backfire: it will give the arb-electorate Yet Another Reason To Opppose the election of non-admins to arbcom. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it makes any sense to give them the bit automatically. They have the ability to "see" everything that they would possibly need to by way of CheckUser and Oversight, the logic that we should give them a tool they don't need just because they were elected for an unrelated position is lost on me completely. I also don't comprehend the argument that because it's perceived by some that they'd easily pass a RfA, we shouldn't make them? Why not? If they can "easily" do it, then who is it harming to make them? The only appropriate analogy I can think of is that non-admin edit-filter managers have proven they're trusted by the community; so why not automatically give them template editor? Because they don't necessarily need it. If they can prove they need it, then the community will give it to them. Kharkiv07 (T)23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue of non-administrator candidates is not so simple. For example, there is currently a candidate who previously held administrative privileges that were removed by the committee. Would administrative rights would be re-granted, quashing the previous decision? I don't think we can decide any of this here, and if an RFC is to be run, it needs to be done swiftly. Personally, I would be delighted to see a non-administrator on the committee and would consider that as a reason to support their candidacy. Giving successful candidates the administrator userright by default could eliminate any perceived or actual benefit. If the candidate is conferred the userright permanently and without restriction, it could also be seen as a 'backdoor' to adminship. While I'm happy to enact community consensus one way or the other, we could simply provide the necessary userrights to oversight and/or checkuser and have them hold one or both of those privileges as necessary. (While I have the floor, I'd love for the view-deleted to be rolled into the bureaucrat package so I could defrock if I wanted to.). –xenotalk14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahem. Special:ListGroupRights provides the necessary information. Both the CheckUser user right and the Oversighter user right have sufficient attached permissions for an arbitrator to carry out a checkuser or to review suppressed revisions or revise an egregious privacy violation. They are not full-fledged admins, but may utilize the tools in the function of the office. Risker (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity query, would a non-admin arbitrator be allowed to conduct their RfA during their term ? If true it would seem that doing so would have an impact on !votes and the outcome. Mlpearc (open channel)16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why they would be proscribed from doing so; there have been active arbitrators who ran for bureaucrat in the past, as I recall, and I don't think there's much difference in the mechanics. I wouldn't predict the impact of a sitting arbitratorship on an RFA - it could have a highly positive effect (ie, user is already trusted as an arb) or a highly negative effect (ie, community members think the arbitrator actions have not met expectations). Risker (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a German example of an arbitrator being elected administrator (OK, this is a case of somebody who had been an admin in the past). Note that the German Wikipedia has a policy that says arbitrator/bureaucrat/checkuser/oversighter are mutually exclusive. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I've created an RfC to determine the community's thoughts on this issue. I would encourage everyone to direct their comments there. Mike V • Talk21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
New admin/admin how-to is now the admin guide
Alright! Wikipedia:New admin is now Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. So the old Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide (WP:ADMINGUIDE) redirects there. Everything it covered is explained in greater detail in our new admin guide. Bureaucrats, if you have a template you issue to new admins that links to the old admin guide or the "admin school", please update it to go to the new admin guide. You can also continue to link to the reading list as that is likely to stay.
This was a quite an undertaking, especially when you didn't know you can move subpages at the same time as moving the parent page... I ended up moving the main admin guide page back then moving it again and using that feature. Anyway, I think I finally got it right. There's probably more double-redirects that neeed fixing, I will try to look into fixing those. Also, I realized I probably should have gone with just Wikipedia:Admin guide, simply for brevity, but maybe someone can reassure me spelling it out to Administrators' guide was the right decision. Afterall we have our redirects such WP:ADMINGUIDE/B for blocking, etc.
There's still a lot of wrok to do. Namely, I want to get a lot of topics mentioned in the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list to the admin guide, such as how to deal with discretionary sanctions, and some other miscellaneous topics. Input or contributions to this effort are greatly appreciated. The big thing I want to stress is we should try to keep the admin guide brief but informative. It is meant to give an overview of how we go about various tasks, and some the best practices and tools we can use to expedite them. If admins want the full story they can refer to the corresponding policy or guideline page.
They're in there. It's sort of organized by task, and where we explain how to go about the task it mentions how you can do it faster with a given script or tool. At some point I'll work on a dedicated page that lists the scripts. WP:US#Admin scripts is very lacking and I'd rather have it as a subpage within the admin guide — MusikAnimaltalk17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Neil that having all of the scripts listed on a dedicated subpage is a good idea, so it's good that it's in your gameplan. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Done! It surely is incomplete. Feel free to add whatever you feel is appropriate. The lists of tools live in subpages of each section of the admin guide as a means to refactor them and make them easier to maintain. — MusikAnimaltalk23:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You know what stumped me was a technical issue, specifically, where to find the right templates to put on user talk pages and article talk pages. I still rely on Twinkle and I'm sure there are more nuanced notices and warnings available somewhere that do a better job communicating with editors. But I think when I went to look for them, they were all in a category and didn't have very descriptive names. LizRead!Talk!23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I would be grateful to have my sysop rights restored. I've just got married and have 2 little children which has kept me away for a while but I believe I have contributed well on a small scale over the years.
FileÉireann12:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
(non-crat comment) It looks like they haven't been removed (yet?). My guess is that your edits from Aug. 24 through now restarted the clock on the "removal" process. — Ched : ? 12:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not clear on whether you guys would still be the ones to talk to about this, but if you are see User talk:Tylas a vanished user who came back and resumed editing under their old, pre-vanishing name and is now blocked for socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
So we can have this user usurped by the vanished account, but I think we would need the user to comment here with his intentions. Andrevan@23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading the page and the mood and CIR and all that, it looks like Bbb23 has probably already handled it for the best, even if it is a tiny bit unorthodox. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah. I thought either there was some magic protection (like this), or the account was so old that it was inadvertently grandfathered. It would appear that Useight has no intention of using their advanced rights. So the account fits into the category "unused and likely to be unused accounts with advanced rights" which en masse are an unneeded security risk, but clearly doesn't fit into the category the rule covers. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
I wonder if we need an edit notice about this. This is the third or so query about Useight (his alt has participated to bureaucrat discussions, so he isn't completely inactive in bureaucrat matters).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I first brought it up earlier this year. Although I never understood why he preferred editing with his alt account than his regular account with user rights. LizRead!Talk!23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, he is often editing somewhere on a less-secure computer (perhaps a public computer, or one shared with others...not sure), so he prefers to use the non-crat account to make sure no one has access to the tools if they someone access his account there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
If I'm coming back I might as well do the best I can to help, and much of that was run-of-the-mill admin work - I see CSD and RFU backlogs are generally quite a bit longer than when I was last active, and those are areas where I used to do a fair bit, so I'd be happy to get back to working on those.
My resignation was in heated circumstances, and for full disclosure the archived events are here. I do not believe I was under a cloud at the time I requested desysop and I had not abused admin rights (and I did not threaten to do so, despite some believing that I did). It remains my opinion that blocking highly active contributors in the middle of heated discussions involving them is almost always a destructive mistake, but I have no intention of ever again acting as an admin in any situation of high drama.
User:Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with others that the wording of this request was ill-advised. Our procedures allow for a return of the tools, but note that if you take up the tools and then relinquish them soon thereafter, any potential future resysop request would necessarily consider the new climate in which you relinquished the tools. –xenotalk 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate that, thanks - but my intention would be to never request resysop again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Desysop again please
I'm about to use the admin tools for one last time to block my own account. When you see I have done it, please then feel free to remove my admin bit again - I shan't be back, so I will not be requesting its restoration again. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
When I look back on my previous opinions and judgments and decide I was wrong, I change my mind - what do you do? (That was a quote I read somewhere - can't remember by whom - but I've always wanted to use it) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that I have not been to 'crat school so I may be way off. I do think you put on a bit of a spectacle last time, but that may or may not be relevant here. I will leave it to the experts. HighInBC17:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll accept there was a bit of muddiness around, and I can't honestly dispute what you say about "spectacle". I regret the emotional way I responded to some people who only meant well, including you, and I can only say that it was the result of a lot of frustration (and at least I showed I knew the right thing to do, which was to walk away). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I intentionally provided context without commentary, FYI, because I personally respect you but haven't really taken the time to fully evaluate all that's happened. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉17:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not inform Arbcom of my cleanstart, because it is not required by Wikipedia:Clean start policy - see "If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use", and "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start". As for creating a username that was too long, that was simply because I did not know of the length restriction - as it allowed me to create it, I had no reason to think it was not acceptable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason you didn't know of the length restriction, is because it doesn't exist. No variant of Usernames must not exceed 40 characters appears at any point in Wikipedia:Username policy, and the closest it comes is extremely lengthy usernames … are highly discouraged but are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. ‑ Iridescent18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm privileged in that I know Boing! said Zebedee personally. Like me, he can be forthright when he's in the right; he's also an honest and extremely fair admin and was one of the best (160/1/0) we had from the 2011 intake. Let's not let this request degenerate in to the squabbling that happened last time - where even some 'crats showed their less revered side - and give him his tools back without a fuss. I'm sure Alan would not do anything to make me regret speaking up here and now that he's back, he's one editor and admin of the calibre we really need to keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, let me get this right:
In July 2014, having previously resigned uncontroversially, you asked for your tools back solely for the purpose of unblocking another editor.
That editor was unblocked by someone else before your request was actioned.
The bureaucrats who opined generally agreed that there was no policy-based reason to deny you the tools, although several stated that they were personally unwilling to do so in the circumstances.
XenoWorm That Turned returned the tools to you. He expressly noted that this was on the basis that (should you resign them again as was your stated intention) the whole July 2014 debacle would be relevant to deciding (if you asked for them back again in the future) whether you had resigned in controversial circumstances. You accepted this.
Having regained the tools, you requested their removal after you had used them to block yourself, which you did. The tools were then removed.
You would now like the tools back.
My initial feeling is that I see much drama and silliness, but not really controversy. Asking for permissions back for a bad reason plus a self-block (and wasted time and energy of everyone who debated the whole sorry story) doesn't seem like sufficient reason to deny returning the rights. I would however, be interested if other bureaucrats have differing thoughts on this request. WJBscribe(talk)18:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
While I don't think there is really a cloud, per se, this is starting to go into the realm where it is similar to people who request rename after rename after rename, and we finally tell them, "No." I'm on the fence on this one because it seems Boing! said Zebedee has been repeatedly wasting our time. They also specifically stated, "...my intention would be to never request resysop again", yet here they are again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It all happened over a very short period of time during a period of stress, which was preceded by a long (and by most accounts productive) time as an admin, and I've kept away for quite a long time since then. And I think I have wasted far far less of other people's time than I have saved in my years of admin work prior to last year's unfortunate events. And whatever your personal thoughts, do you actually have a policy reason to deny my resysop? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The bit should be returned as there doesn't seem to be any "clouds" or policies in the way but, requesting the "switch" to be flipped many times doesn't shine good on the decision making processes, which in time might hinder retaining the bit. I concur with Kudpung that Boing! said Zebedee is still a net positive (my phrase) to the user group. Mlpearc (open channel)19:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There was no cloud, no evasion of scrutiny. I'm tempted to suggest he runs RfA again just to remind him how valued he is, but in my opinion this should be a simple resysop. That said, I should also disclose that I have met BsZ a number of times in real life, so would like to see other opinions. WormTT(talk) 19:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(non-'crat comment, obviously) BsZ should be resysopped. I don't think we want to deter admins from stepping away when they feel burnt out or stressed out, nor those who have stepped away from later returning. Of course, optimally the exercise would involve less drama, and also would not be repeated repeatedly... we want back our Boing!, though adminship isn't meant to go boing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) FWIW, the three most recent re-RfA's seemed to go smoothly. I don't think it's a bad thing to go that route after a long-ish knockoff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not the forum to change RFA policy, and unless you can show that I resigned under a cloud and must face RFA again, that observation is not relevant. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually since no functionary is ever required to use their tools it is not enough to prove that no rule exists to prevent you from getting access back. You also need to convince a 'crat that they should personally use their tools for that purpose. Any 'crat is welcome to decide not to act in this case. It certainly is relevant that you have been a bit wasteful of their time in the past. Just like users who request renames exorbitantly can be ignored, so can users who excessively request de-re-sysoping. HighInBC23:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I have enough supporters here to suggest that is unlikely to happen, and if no just cause for refusing my resysop is demonstrated then I only need one crat to do the deed. So do you have any evidence that my resysop would not be in keeping with policy? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not a question of whether you have "enough supporters". My comment was only pointing out that you seem to waffle a lot on what you want to do. My being on the fence means I could go either way, though at this point I'm leaning toward resysopping. I would strongly recommend, though, that you become less of a waffler or you may run into an instance where someone finally says, "Enough is enough." We are all volunteers, and wasting our time with going back and forth on this is not playing nicely with us. . ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking "policy" – I was suggesting that a voluntary re-RfA would be a good course of action in this case. Thus it is relevant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum for open discussion on how best to approach resysop, it is a forum in which I ask for my bit back and if nobody can present a policy reason for denying it, I get it back. Your suggestion is interesting, but this *is* purely a policy issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Are we worried about being "wasteful of their [the crats'] time" because they're so busy with RFAs right now? I've done 3 cycles of desysop/resysop myself, and this would be BsZ's third. I suppose I see a theoretical issue with someone switching back and forth all the time, but that isn't what's happening here. Three requests in five years isn't excessive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Excessive" is usually not defined as "more often than other people"; it usually needs to cause some kind of problem for someone. Maybe Wikipedia defines "excessive" differently. Wouldn't be the firsttime that happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's the number of requests people are taking issue with. It takes seconds to turns the bit on and off. If you want to just be an admin on the weekends, I'd probably be willing to desysop you on Monday morning and resysop you on Friday night every week. I think people are a bit exasperated at discussions that have spawned from these particular requests. That said, I don't think there's any real doubt that Boing! is going to have his access restored. WJBscribe(talk)10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Floquenbeam. In my time as an admin and serving the editing community, my policy was never that editors should not be wasting my time - my time was mine, and if anyone wasted it it was me, and not the people I was serving. (And I've spent a *lot* more time helping others than I've ever asked others to spend helping me.) Similarly, I am not here to serve the crats, and I shall henceforth ignore those crats who complain I have been wasting their time - if that's what they think, they should just ignore me and go do whatever else they wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I wasn't complaining. I was merely pointing out the potential appearance of your requests in the past. Stating you are going to ignore editors who point out something which might (and apparently is, to some people) be a concern is not a very effective way to interact on a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Even if you don't see it as a problem, at least acknowledging that others appear to have the concern is the most effective course. Something along the lines of, "I can see where you're coming from. I'll keep it in mind for the future." would be a good way to respond rather than quoting policy. As others have said, there was no question of policy supporting the reinstatement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Apologies, I'd taken this board off my watchlist and didn't see this comment. I acknowledge and accept your point. I'd seen what I thought were people opposing my resysop for non-policy reasons, but I accept I was wrong in your case and I apologise for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Having been around at the time of the previous desysops and resysops, my recollection matches that of the 'crats above who have commented: ultimately I don't see a policy-based reason for declining this request. It will be nice to have you back as an admin, after the requisite 24-hour discussion period has concluded. 28bytes (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very kind, thank you. But I'm happy to wait longer than the usual 24 hours - I've been away so long it hardly matters to me, and I'd prefer to leave things open for long enough for anyone who wishes to have their say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Meh. While I personally think it's silly for someone to keep asking to be de- and resysopped, Boing! said Zebedee isn't breaking any rules by doing so and, at the very least, he has created a little bit of work for we bureaucrats. I hold no objection to him being re-granted the tools once the 24-hour waiting period is over. Acalamari00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
As people seem to be in general agreement with my analysis above, I am also willing to re-grant the tools. We'll wait out the usual 24hr period for good order, however. WJBscribe(talk)10:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Usually at the beginning of the month, there is a notice of inactive admins who have been notified by email that they might lose the bit due to inactivity (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 33#Inactive administrators and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 33#Inactive admins for October 2015).
But I've seen no updates for November and December. Does this mean that no one has been desysoped? Or is it just not being announced any more at this noticeboard? I think it's preferable for this process to be pubic because a) some editor might see an admin they know and reach out to them and b) it's just not ideal to have desysopings without a public acknowledgement in case questions arise later (like the admin wants to get resysoped). LizRead!Talk!21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it is a requirement. I would say that it is customary, at least enough so that I do check each month to read over the list. LizRead!Talk!22:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The notes that are left here are typically polite promptings for us to do our job when we let the deadline go by. Sometimes we actually take the initiative and do the needful on time without a prompt. If it's desirable for us to post here in such cases, I'm sure we could try to make it a habit. –xenotalk02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Some desire to use {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} on the template has been expressed, though it is not a requirement. Cyberpower678 is willing to make changes to the template as needed, if desired.
The advertisement on CENT does not carry the same restrictions that watch list notices have.
There is now a limit on the number of questions a specific user can ask a candidate.
The limit is 2 questions.
Appropriate relevant follow-up questions are allowed.
I'm specifically posting this here because I want the 'crats in particular to see this. Could a bureaucrat kindly review the close and give their opinion on it? There will be no end to this dispute about the closing if someone very experienced and well-trusted doesn't at least endorse it. Biblioworm17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It isn't just a question of who closes, but of closing it prematurely. The question of 65% versus two-thirds needs discussion. I'd like to see the !voters in that section polled as to which option they prefer. Jonathunder (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to its own section. In particular, the closure for C1 is the most disputed one, so that one in particular should probably be reviewed and commented on by a 'crat or an uninvolved admin with extensive experience in closing discussions. The main issue is whether the range should start 65% or 67%. Biblioworm20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Not that it makes a major difference, but a 2/3 - or 2 to 1 - is crystal clear. Clearer than 65% or 67% which is just a "random number" or a random rounding. - Nabla (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
On my talk page. There's been concern about me closing section C1 on the proposal, with claims, that I may be biased about the close. Being reasonable on my part, I'd like to think at least, I have reversed my close on that section for the time being until a bureaucrat can either endorse the close, or re-open it for discussion.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion of that RfC was open for 2 weeks. Some RfCs only last that long. The discussion on this particular RfC was found to have practically ground to a halt, so we agreed an early close would be appropriate.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page. You can't miss the section. I started off asking if I should close early or continue waiting. If I was told to wait, I would have waited.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown21:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Still, please do not do that. If it is expected for a - important! - discussion to last a month, then let it last a month. I happened to be able to write most of my opinions, but I read about the RfC and then I only wrote a week or so later, when I had the time to read carefully and had time to ponder a little about it. 2 or 3 editors, in a talk page that most people are not following up deciding, to close early is not respectful towards others. RfA is mostly unchanged for years, can't you wait 2 weeks? - Nabla (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
That section you point to about closing early was opened today. Even if you don't wait the two weeks Nabla recommends, at least wait one day. Jonathunder (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yea, it's clear to me I goofed on this one, in more than one area regarding the RfC. I hope you can see it in your to forgive me, for a lapse in judgement like this. I'm not usually this pea-brained.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It think it's quite impractical to have to wait another 14 days just to close an RfC that already had clear results and had become almost entirely inactive. If it's re-opened, given all publicity this has gotten, all the anti-reform people might very well move in quickly to sink the proposals. But anyway, efficiency is definitely not "pea-brained", in my opinion, but unfortunately efficiency is not always highly-valued when trying to pass proposals (in all governance systems). But, if everyone will continue to insist that it is done, I suppose we could re-open it for another couple of weeks. Biblioworm22:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think it is highly inappropriate for an RfC on an important policy change to be closed that quickly. I think that the RfC must be reopened and allowed to run for at least 30 days. Moreover, again given the importance of the changes discussed in the RfC, it would be much better if it is closed by a team of 2-3 closers rather than by a single closer. Nsk92 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
RfAs run for 7 days, even if there is unanimous support. RfCs should run for 30 days and the proposers should be prepared for them to last a month. This is especially important when there is a proposal to alter a process so fundamental as the RfA process. You can't just close an RfC when you have the results you prefer. I don't know who these "anti-reform" editors are but everyone is entitled to offer their opinion at an RfC as long as it is not disruptive. LizRead!Talk!23:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
For clarity, I didn't close early to prevent these "anti-reformers" from commenting, I suggested an early close because the discussion on the RfC seemed to have hit a standstill. That aside, it's clear to me that closing it early was a bad idea, and is something I will not suggest doing in future RfCs.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, I know that, and that wasn't the point of closing it early. But my point was that since this RfC has become so widely known (especially the part about expanding the range), I fully expect that a self-selected group of maintain-the-status-quo users (I obviously won't put together a list, but you know them when you see them) have now become well aware of this RfC and will attempt to sink the whole thing. Perhaps we should just put it on the watchlist for another few days, to get more input and balanced opinions from different community members, not just a self-selected group. The notice was actually removed before the scheduled time, in fact. Biblioworm23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The full 30 days would have been preferred, and it probably should have been advertised at this noticeboard. I haven't reviewed the RFC in detail, but I'm not sure about the notion of a bureaucrat closing or endorsing closure because the result modifies the way we wield our wrenches (though I appreciate the trust editors are putting in us not to overreach). It would be better to have a team of closers, as has been done in recent RFCs that has wide implications. –xenotalk02:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Is 14 vs 30 days really an issue when activity at the RFC reached a near standstill days before ending? It is not as though there were a bunch of votes right before closing. It came to its natural end. I really would hate to see this forward movement bogged down in bureaucracy(no offence to the 'crats). HighInBC03:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it really is. I have given an opinion twice, in different sections of the RfC, at different times, as i have thought about it and drawn conclusions; i would have expected to be able t continue to do so over a month. Premature close, and closing an RfC before the standard month is clearly premature, even if it is discussed on the talk page, would certainly have the effect of stopping my participation and that of others like me who think rather slower than some; cheers, LindsayHello08:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You can rest assured that I will no longer be doing premature closes ever again, and I won't be touching this particular RfC anymore. I am sorry for the troubles I caused everyone.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown01:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should follow through on what we say we will do, because people make plans on that basis, and it is unfair to change the timing midway. We should also be encouraging editors to invest time reviewing all expressed views and crafting reasoned responses. Ending discussions prematurely instead encourages editors to comment as quickly as possible. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. Surely no one was trying to "hide" or rush the RFC to produce a desire result, more time/participation can only result in a more robust result. –xenotalk11:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the line of thought is along the lines of yes, the early close was in good faith for a true belief that the discussion had died, but now since the close was debated, pretty much everywhere, including some very drama prone areas, that it may attract people that refuse to allow change on Wikipedia. They probably didn't care much at first because it wasn't advertised there, but now that it is, it might tempt to storm in and bring down the RfC. That's how I'm interpreting this. I could be wrong though. In any case, I have learned my lesson here, and if I really did end up killing what looks like a well thought out RfC, I apologize Biblioworm.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown05:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So the question becomes, why wasn't it advertised there? Surely not to try and put one past people who might raise objections? If a poll is held but proponents of one particular proposal attempt to keep it hush-hush so people who might opine differently than the "desired" result, this is not a poll I would feel comfortable implementing. Either there is consensus for the change or there isn't. Ending things early, not advertising in places where it ought be, this just seems akin to redrawing political riding maps to disenfranchise certain classes of voters. Hopefully I've misunderstood these comments that seem to indicate that the early closure should stand because certain people who didn't notice the poll and weren't able to register their opinion are now able to do so. –xenotalk13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Question about RfBs and new bureaucrats
I was looking at the timeline on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats showing all users who have served as bureaucrats and noticed that 2015 is the first year when there has been 0 new bureaucrats appointed. In fact, in January 2016, it will have been 2 years since there was a successful RfB.
Meanwhile, I was looking at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological and found that it stops at 2012 and so since then have all RfBs been successful or is the page not being updated?
I know that now that there are global renamers, there are fewer responsibilities that are solely left to bureaucrats but with the recent notices about bureaucrat activity requirements and removing permissions, I'm wondering if there are enough bureaucrats. Maybe all Wikipedia needs are 7 or 8 bureaucrats or perhaps you could use more help and new faces, I don't know. This subject has been occasionally discussed but I thought I would create a thread to ask if you all were concerned about the lack of RfBs. LizRead!Talk!23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's remarkable. Isn't the bar of support for an RfB at least 80%? Or is it 85%? I guess fewer editors want to go through the process. But for it to be two years without a successful or unsuccessful RfB is pretty notable. LizRead!Talk!00:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we need more, yes the standard is high, and it's a self-selecting group. Similar to how Harvard applicants pretty much all have top percentile grades and SAT scores compared to the general population. That all RFBs have been successful is partly also a sign that, aside from the rare contentious RFA, bureaucrats don't do all that much. Andrevan@04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I would say we are less like the Harvard elite and more like the mostly idle paper-pushers in charge of issuing fishing licenses in an underpopulated county. Not that there's anything wrong with that. 28bytes (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There really isn't much, in my opinion. Some of our 'crats are also global renamers, and handle the user rename requests in that capacity (or in Avi's and MBisanz's case, in their capacity as a steward), but other than that, it's closing the occasional RfA (which tend to be handled promptly) or responding to requests on this noticeboard (which also tend to be handled promptly.) We have it pretty well covered at the moment, I think – no real 'crat backlogs to speak of – but of course attrition is a real phenomenon, so if anyone is interested in helping out in that capacity we would certainly be happy to welcome them to the team pending a successful RfB. 28bytes (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That answers my question, 28bytes. Since there is such a high threshold of support that must be met in an RfB, bureaucrats have a high level of trust given to them by the community and there is probably more responsibilities they could be entrusted with. But I've also noticed a reluctance to expand the scope of bureaucratic duties so I guess the current situation will stay the same for the now. LizRead!Talk!11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the "superconsensus" of 80-85% plus that is required has been partly a function of us not needing very many bureaucrats. The aim has tended to be to appoint 2-3 each year, so I guess the community has felt able to afford to be picky. I suspect the current lull in applications results from the creation of global renamers, which has considerably reduced the available work that only bureaucrats can do. Whilst difficult to argue that we need greater numbers of bureaucrat, the community might want a fresher team than some of us old timers... I don't think we should mistake the level of support in a RfB for general approval - bureaucrats have had the support of 90%+ of the community to do certain tasks. That same level of support has tended not to present in other contexts, such as ArbCom elections. Couple of examples:
A bureaucrat running for ArbCom: My RfB had 98% support. When I ran for ArbCom the following year I had 68% support at the time I withdrew.
A former Arb's RfB: Wizardman had 66% support in the same 2008 election and was appointed to a 2 year term. His subsequent RfB in 2013 received 97% support.
(edit conflict)*I generally have a very high regard for our 'crats although I tend to tease them a bit during various discussions. I see them as argute semi retired senior civil servants who are still on the payroll in an advisory capacity. If they were given a broader mandate (and would accept it) their wisdom would be worth its weight in gold, and we might even get a few new contenders for the job. Yes, we need more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that we need more, if nothing else just to avoid a perception of the group as distant and ultra-elite. The standards are ridiculous for a job that ultimately has very few new responsibilities. Curiously, despite the extremely high level of scrutiny, I've noticed in RfA reform that the community seems to have a distrust of bureaucrats and adamantly fears giving them any new abilities. Maybe, if the current reform efforts see some success, there will be more RfAs and we'll start electing some 'crats again. Biblioworm16:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Forcing upon the community that which they have, according to you rejected the notion of, sounds like having the opposite effect - namely that the group perceived as "distant and ultra-elite" will simply become bigger! Do we really need more of the very accurately described "semi retired senior civil servants who are still on the payroll in an advisory capacity." Wikipedia is intended to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written. It needs content creators & editors, not more officials. Leaky Caldron17:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see myself as a person in the middle. I see the need for both. We need officials to keep order and vandals off of the site and we need editors to keep are articles up to quality standards. The problem is, that in both areas, there are people that are just way too aggressive and results in a clash creating a toxic atmosphere on the project. If the aggressiveness can be solved on the project, both parties can work more harmoniously, but that's way easier said than done.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown18:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be ideal? Wikipedia has become so big that the valued content editors that end up becoming admins will end up doing adminny stuff instead of editing. True you can't inexperienced editors step up, but it would make more sense to have less content focused editors, who still understand the value of content to step up to let those who focus on content to continue doing what they do best. I know this can be debated, and there is no perfect solution to this problem, but in an ideal world, I would agree with you. But what about the botops? What do we consider them? I'd like to see myself as a technical editor who contributes by eliminating tedious work with automated processes, like the no 404 project I'm working on.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown04:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Bots very important. We can't keep increasing the number of pages without handing more work over to Bots. Good luck with your 404 project! I've been working on getting the FACBot to handle Featured Lists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think RFA has changed. Anyone running for RfB now needs fairly good insight into RfA, but in order to do so, it means considerable participation. RfA has felt more rocky lately with increased standards, quite a bit of contention over how discussions/badgering occurs, and a marathon of RFCs. I think we'd have quite a few candidates that should be able to pass, but won't, either because they aren't "boring enough" and have too much history/drama or RfB standards have likely inflated along side RfA so receiving 80-85% support seems untenable. Mkdwtalk19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That's not the impression I get, Biblioworm – the feeling I get is that Crats are specifically distrusted by the Admin corps who generally don't want to give them new duties and want to set limits on them (e.g. the recent activity limits on Crats, which is ironic as there is some resistance to doing exactly the same with Admins if Beeblebrox's current RfC is any indication...), just as regular editors tend to distrust Admins: it's just a fact of life that you generally resent the guy above you on the totem pole... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I don't distrust the bureaucrats. I think they've gone through more than enough scrutiny to justify their being trusted with more abilities. Biblioworm21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Eh, no. Not anytime soon, anyway. Perhaps I will if there is any need for more in the future (given my interest in the RfA process), but at the moment that doesn't seem very likely, and if it ever does happen it will probably be several years from now when some of the more active 'crats retire. (Or, if by some miracle, we recover from the RfA drought.) In any case, there's not much that the job has to offer, and I'm not sure that I would want to go through ultra-RfA II just for a few new checkboxes. Biblioworm21:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"Admin corps" is a general term. I'm not implying that every Admin holds those views (far from it...), just that it's my impression that this is a substantial or possibly even prevailing view among Admins in general. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Because, Hawkeye7, 1) like my bid for a seat on the Arbitration Committee, trolls would come with their obnoxious PA and accuse me of being a crank, a villain, a pederast, and a misogynist with absolute impunity just like they do their damnedest to derail many RfA., 2) I'm not boring enough, and 3) I fight bullshit with a bullwhip. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Reading "there's not much that the job has to offer" and "I'm not boring enough", I'm sure you two didn't mean to imply that being a bureaucrat was not interesting or that our beloved bureaucrats are boring. When I read over crat chats, they seem pretty damn important and sharp as a tack.LizRead!Talk!21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Kind of surprising to read over these points of view. I had the sense that bureaucrats had the community's trust and respect and that there was recent discussion about asking them to take over more responsibilities, not fewer. With global renamers, given that bureaucrats' primary responsibility is granting and taking away admin rights, I imagine that editors/admins who have animosity towards them disagree with some of their adminship decisions. I don't distrust bureaucrats, quite the contrary, and I don't think most editors distrust admins although they might not care for individual administrators. But admins don't trust every other admin either so this is probably just a clash of personalities, practices or philosophy. And I think that is common in most online communities. LizRead!Talk!22:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I've also thought the bureaucrats were among some of the community's most trusted and respected body. They're essentially elected with the trust that they will fairly weight the voices of the community for RFA and likewise, serve a functionary role in promoting or desysopping admins at the will of other bodies like ArbCom. Mkdwtalk22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to have a new 'crat or couple elected, not because we necessarily need the additional hands on deck, but because not having promotion and change at all levels gives the impression of a project at stasis and could suggest that only people who have been on the project since the early to mid '00s are trusted by the community. If you're a respected admin who participates at AfD and are reading this, do please run. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for reinstatement of adminship
Resolved
I am requesting reinstatement of my administrator status, which was removed on 2015-10-02 due to my inactivity (my last edit had been on 2014-09-17). I've been on a "wikibreak", but am returning to editing. I have been an editor (joining over 10 years ago with over 39,000 edits) and administrator in good standing. Thank you for considering my request. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
With the likely success of the current RfA's, just wanted to quickly remind 'crats that the "new admin school" and the "administrators' how-to guide" have been merged into the new admin guide. Hoping to get some valuable feedback from new admins over the coming months. Many thanks and happy holidays — MusikAnimaltalk19:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi MusicAnimal, thanks for your work with updating the help pages/tutorials for new admins. I'll be sure to update accordingly my message to new admins whom I flag. Acalamari15:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I've been on an extended hiatus/wikibreak for some time now, but am pleased to say that I've returned! Please would you be kind enough to reinstate my admin privileges that were suspended in October? Many thanks, --Tristessa(talk)19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Usernames are global now and so must be renamed globally. Not all crats are global renamers, and I think you'll find it difficult get consensus to give global rename to all admins. Either way, the discussion should be at meta. WormTT(talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Xeno. For what it is worth, I rarely see the queue above a half-dozen, and it is empty the plurality of the times I check. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure: 2015 administrator election reform, Phase II
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I agree; no problem, that's just hours away, and this discussion may turn may be helpful for the closing administrator(s). Wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The question about the discretionary range is to be closed according to community consensus, not one person's dislike of the proposal. Biblioworm21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course. My point is that the way the proposal was framed will make it difficult to determine consensus – more thought and "reading between the lines" to determine what !voters are really supporting (or what they think they are supporting). This can't be closed by a simple !vote count, which is why I'd like to see a discussion among experienced admins and not a perfunctory simple declaration by an admin-wanna-be... Frankly, I'm still unclear on exactly how you expect to actually implement this if it passes. I presented my best guess on what I think consensus might be. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The current discretionary range is in practice quite firmly set in stone, and that discretionary range exists only because the 'crats believe the community wants it to exist. The 'crats do not pass below 70% or fail above 75% because they don't believe the community wants them to. The 'crats do consider the opinion of the community in such matters; I saw a 'crat chat on an RfB from a few years ago in which they were discussing the community's opinion on the 90% bar. If this proposal passes, this will show that the community has new expectations of bureaucrats, and since it formally passed the community proposal process we should probably write it down, at least as a rough guideline. In the spirit of community consensus, the 'crats should honor that decision, just like other community members are supposed to when RfCs successfully propose new practice. The complete SNOW failure of proposal C4 demonstrates clearly that the community now believes that the bureaucrats' discretion should be limited, and therefore it is not honest to keep pretending that the real discretionary range is still 0–100% (people still claim that, but come on, get serious: we all know that isn't true and it never has been, so we aren't actually losing anything at all by just saying in the guidelines that it isn't). Biblioworm23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
See, my impression has always been that discretionary ranges are mostly stringently adhered to practice but not enforceable policy. As in, while you won't see a major deviation outside of truly exceptional cases, there is no formal ban on doing so.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
So the suggestion here is despite rather clear community consensus that we should somehow expand the discretionary range, the closers are to close the proposal as failed just because some people think it's not enforceable (although I did just give a thorough explanation just above)? That would be quite crooked indeed. As I said, I think it would be wise to at least record this as a guideline for bureaucrats. Biblioworm23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well to me the notions of "discretionary" and "set in stone" are incompatible, and the way the terms are being used is confusing, and may be implying different things to different people.
Feel free to say nice things about me at any time :) OTOH, this might give people the impression that I'm likely to deliver the result you want, so I'd prefer that you not ask me to close, and I think most closers probably feel the same way. I wasn't thinking of closing this one, and I've listed it (twice) at WP:AN. But if no one else closes it or indicates interest, I'll do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Replying to Wbm1058: I had a similar reaction, along the lines of wondering what the crats would make of that. If a crat wants to close or co-close, fine. If they don't, I would certainly ask their opinions about that before closing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. Even if the so-called RfC is to be re-assessed and re-closed by someone else, it should not be binding, per items #1 and #2.
Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton:
It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.
The RfC has been closed by a bureaucrat. Someone was certain to claim that the RfC was invalid, but everyone had their chance to participate, as it was widely advertised on noticeboards and the watchlist. There are no excuses. I will stand by the results and not give in to the demands of those who oppose it. Biblioworm00:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't run RfA, and don't make RfA policies. I'm not sure why you imply above that you do. I am questioning the snap-judgment closing, and the idea that this massive 21-question RfC was ever to be, or could be, considered automatically binding and made into policy. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you disagree with my closes (I closed each of the open discussions individually). Given that you opposed in all three instances where you participated there, I'm not surprised you dislike the closing. You're welcome to discuss further reform after allowing the usual at-least-30-days to pass. Anyone can start an RfC. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender might be referring to the original close of the RfC by Cyberpower678, which was reversed. As far as how binding this RfC is because Softlavender thinks it was too short (that was the complaint two weeks ago when Cyberpower678 reversed their close) or because it doesn't adhere to their interpretation of what an RfC is, I say WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR. Multiple one-question RfCs all lasting 30 days would be unreasonable. clpo13(talk)01:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with Softlavender. The RfA process has been so disfunctional in the recent past, and there has been so much in the way of reform discussion that many may have fallen by the wayside, despairing that RfA would ever be reformed. However, this RfC was well structured and managed, there were many thoughtful discussion points, and it resulted in some clear outcomes that I am sure will benefit RfA and en WP in general. The results should stand and be implemented immediately. I would like to assume good faith here, but sadly, I don't think this thread is itself an act of good faith and acceptance of the consensus that was achieved. All the best. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Valid close. As for point #3, Wikipedia:Bypass your cache may be useful, as the non-admin close has already been reversed. Comparing the RfC to the controversial one-issue RM is questionable, as the RfC focused on many issues that were separate and less complex than the one complex issue that the RM presented. It isn't more complex than the RM, it just focuses on more issues than the RM. Esquivaliencet01:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, folks, I really think we should just close this thing and move on with the results. The RfC was closed by a bureaucrats, ran for 30 days, was as widely advertised about as widely as it is possible to advertise, and the proposals were neutrally worded. Very frankly, I see this simply as a last-ditch attempt of a determined reform opponent to stop the implementation of results that achieved consensus fairly and legitimately. Biblioworm01:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
For bureaucrats
Just to make the formal announcement, it has been concluded per community consensus that the discretionary range on RfAs should be expanded from the current de facto 70–75% to 65–75%. Bureaucrats should ideally keep this in mind when closing future RfAs. Thank you. Biblioworm01:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I noticed under "Bureaucrat activity requirements" the statement, "If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity...". Does this mean that an inactive bureaucrat can not just respond to this activity status notice by editing or doing admin tasks but must conduct bureaucrat activity if they want to keep their bureaucrat permission? I guess, at a bare minimum, that could involve posting on this noticeboard. LizRead!Talk!22:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
They would have to participate in bureaucrat activity, however this is widely construed and involves even merely "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks". –xenotalk23:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Xeno (et al), I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I probably won't be returning to Bureaucrat activity within that timespan. I haven't really been actively participating in the project for a number of years (just a few edits here and there) and don't really feel that I'm caught up enough on the latest community standards/guidelines/norms to really participate in any bureaucrat activities. Plus, I'm sure that the existing active bureaucrats have the responsibilities as well-covered as they were when I was around. Best wishes to all of you! :) – Ilyanep(Talk)23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Noted. While I still participate in Wikimedia (especially Commons), most of what Ilyanep said above goes for me as well. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I can only echo Ilyanep and Infrogmation's comments -- I still support Wikipedia, I edit occasionally (and plan Wikipedia-related events at my university), but I feel too distant from the current community discussions to be active as a bureaucrat (not that I ever set any records in that regard -- the community has always had an active core that manages most of the business). I am grateful to the people who asked me to hold the role, more than a decade ago; I hope that my few actions then as bureaucrat served the larger purposes of Wikipedia; and I am happy to defer to those active today with best wishes and much Wikilove. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Xeno. I've been hesitant to weigh in because on the one hand, I'd like to be useful as a bureaucrat, but I have not effectively kept up with the continuing evolution in policies and procedures. I keep thinking that I will have the time to go through them and start contributing to some of the administrative work, but "meat life" (as we used to say) has kept me very busy the last few years.... - BCorr|Брайен16:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm undergoing physical therapy for my back now, so I'm probably more "active" than I've been for a while . -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Done reluctantly. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
--IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved
. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
