Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 22:06:48 on July 18, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Re-admin request InShaneee

Hello, I was just told that my admin rights are going to be permanently lost if I don't manually request them restored, so I'd like to do so in the hopes I can find time to get back to work soon. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Procedurally, I'm sure your resysop is a mere 23 hours away. But, for my sake, just a question: you made one edit here in the last five years, namely the edit to request your admin tool back. Why would you suddenly need to use the admin tools and are you aware of everything that's happened with relation to admins on English Wikipedia in your preceding five years of absence? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee, but also noting that ArbCom did not desysop and that was roughly 6 months before editor left altogether. --Rschen7754 22:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted. My question notwithstanding, I feel uneasy about this resysop given the unanimous conclusions of Arbcom "back in the day" about inappropriate behaviour as an admin. Back then, a ten-day suspension of sysop ability would these days most likely equate to being removed of the bit, more importantly the behaviour of this editor was noted as exhibiting "substantially similar previous behavior" which "was discussed at length by the community" which revealed " the community was concerned about InShaneee's use of blocks and lack of willingness to discuss them"..... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like "a cloud" to me ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, part of the sanction was "InShaneee's admin privileges are suspended for a period of ten days." I count 41 edits after that Arb hearing, scattered over a few months before leaving. I will leave the interpretation up to the Crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, I have been periodically reading what's been going on behind the scenes over the last few years, so I'd like to think I'm still pretty up to date. The reason I'd like my privileges back is because, as my edit history shows, most of the work I did here was simple reversions from the 'recent changes' list, uncontroversial speedy deletions, and other 'mop' type activity. I had always planned to come back after a break (and had been told that wouldn't be an issue), so when I do come back, that'd likely be where I'd want to pick up at. InShaneee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a no from me. Other 'crats may see if differently, of course, but I can't see the purpose in re-promoting this editor based on no activity for five years and a cloudy past including admonishment from Arbcom (albeit back in the day). Suggest the editor submits himself to RFA, like other candidates, so the community can assess his ability in the current climate (i.e. understand the five-year gap and whether or not the editor meets current standards). The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading WP:CLOUD is quite enlightening in this case. I quote:

A user whose hidden conduct, questionable good faith, or other uncertain behavior comes to light, and steps down before it can be fully examined, may not be seen as appropriate to resume the role at will once it has become "stale".

The concern also arises because resignation may be seen as having resolved the issue and therefore the matter may have been dropped by others rather than examine an issue that is no longer in need of remedy.

Accordingly a user who steps down in such a way that it seems they have evaded their conduct being actually assessed by the community, or their fitness to the role being affirmed, may be refused the right to automatically reclaim that role later without going through the usual process again to confirm they do in fact have the community's trust.

Given these definitions, InShaneee does not meet the definition of having resigned under a cloud. The resignation was not before the user's conduct was fully examined, and was not done to evade assessment of their conduct as the Arbitration case was completed. If InShaneee had remained active then they would likely still have their administrator rights. As such, do we have the right to decline the request? I do not know the answer to these questions yet. I will need to think more about this issue. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well rather than just blindly following the guidelines, I'm suggesting an editor with no edits for five years and who had an Arbcom case admonishing them for dubious admin behaviour in the past is not a suitable candidate for immediate re-sysop. If this is the kind of candidate we blindly re-sysop "per policy" or "per guideline" then we've got it wrong. How can the community have faith in this kind of candidate? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm "blindly following guidelines" when I quite clearly stated I've not even made my mind up about what I think is the correct course of action yet. All I was doing was giving some points for consideration. That is allowed, yes? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to be a little careful of how these essay (not policy) pages spring into existence and who edits them. That pages contains some sensible points (and some less sensible points IMHO), but is basically one contributor's viewpoint and is far from an exhaustive account of the factors that have been (or should be considered) in these cases. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my fault, I didn't mean to single you out here, my apologies. I meant, instead of "us" (i.e. crats) blindly re-sysopping, this case seems more contentious than most. I see no good reason to resysop someone who hasn't made a single edit in five years but suddenly gets an email telling him he's not going to be an admin any more, just for him to show up here asking for his bit back. When we rename people, we often ask questions like "are you sure you won't edit on behalf of others" or "are you sure you're not editing with a conflict of interest", but with this resysop process, we're just saying, sure, after five years without a single edit, you can just become an admin again. Seems anomalous. I would like these candidates for re-sysop to dedicate themselves to some kind of editing, rather than just give them the admin tool back after five years of inactivity barring a single edit to say "I need it back....". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, and fair point. I need to think about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the e-mails sent out for were that exact reason: to notify of the impending lengthy inactivity policy going into place on January 1 and to see if they were interested in the tools being restored under the former process (with the 24 wait, now). On that note, I would be very weary of a resysop in this case, 'crats. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Weary or wary? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo, sorry. Being wary can make you weary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this a very borderline call. On the one hand, I lean in the same direction as Rambling Man - inappropriate conduct leading to sanction followed by extended inactivity sounds like controversial circumstance / under a cloud if those words are to be given their natural meaning. On the other hand, I can see the argument that the "controversial circumstances" having been investigated and found to warrant a temporary (not permanent) removal of rights, it would be wrong for that decision to be second guessed because the inactivity of the user allows bureaucrats to do so. That doesn't necessarily strike me as what's happening here. I think the key question is: does the ArbCom decision "cleanse" the misconduct such as to prevent us weighing it in the balance when considering whether to restore the tools? On balance - I don't think it does. As I understand it, restoration of rights without RfA is meant to be available to administrators in good standing. Refusing to resysop without RfA is not a bureaucrat imposed sanction, it simply reflects our assessment that the circumstances in which a user left / became inactive were controversial such that the question of whether or not rights should be restored should be referred to the community. This seem to me to be such a case - notwithstanding the temporary desysop, I do think InShanee stopped editing in controversial circumstances. It therefore seems best to err on the side of caution and let the community decide at RfA, but I think input from other bureaucrats would be helpful. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

WJBscribe excellently conveys both sides of the decision. I think ultimately we should AGF and think that the inactivity was not from the ArbCom case. I would ultimately say to resysop through AGF and go from there. They can always be desysopped through ArbCom case if they prove to misuse the tool.—cyberpower _Offline^{Merry Christmas} 00:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this for quite a while, I'm leaning towards agreeing with WJB here. I think that given the nature of the situation, RfA is the best bet. This is not us saying declining to resysop, it is us saying that in this case it is not up to us to decide. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after seeing Jreferee's request, I decided it was worth sending emails to the people I had Mabdul notify earlier this month about the change in policy; that's why the latest requests are here. My take is that the community does not want us acting with discretion in resysopping requests. The presumption is that a user can be resysopped unless a prohibition applies. The prohibitions are:

1. User has been inactive for three year period of time which includes or is subsequent to the date of desysopping (details vary): InShaneee filed this request prior to the expiration of the prior policy
2. User resigned the tools in a manner so that it appears he did so to avoid scrutiny that has a high probability of leading to desysopping (such as a pending RFC or RFAR): InShaneee's conduct was scrutinized by Arbcom and his conduct subsequent to the case does not indicate he left to avoid further scrutiny
3. The reviewing bureaucrat is not satisfied that the person requesting resysopping is the original owner of the account or that the account's security has not been compromised: No one has questioned InShaneee's identity
4. Subsequent to desysopping, the user engaged in conduct of an extreme and egregious nature such that no reasonable person could doubt they would have been desysopped should they have done it while an admin (socking, severe copyvios, etc.): InShaneee made no edits subsequent to his desysopping for inactivity and no other bad acts have been alleged

Based on that analysis, I don't see on what basis we can deny a resysopping. We don't judge admin behavior, that's Arbcom's job. We only judge if a person resigned to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior. No reasonable person could find that InShaneee resigned or went inactive to avoid Arbcom judging their behavior because Arbcom actually reviewed their behavior. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• What if all the Crats have looked at it and have simply decided "I won't say no, but I can't say yes"? Would the request eventually be closed out simply due to an unwillingness of a sufficient number of Crats willing to openly approve? Are Crats obligated to give a definitive opinion if they have commented? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis here, and I think a member of ArbCom (or a couple) should comment here about whether InShaneee should be resysopped or not. It's clear that the crats disagree in this case and emotions are high, and its not worth all this drama. Secret ^account 03:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What drama? This is a very calm discussion. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What Deskana said. I don't have an opinion and don't see that it would be helpful even if I did here. My questions weren't rhetorical, I am genuinely curious. And this is outside of ArbCom's scope anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe drama is a poor choice of word, I'm trying to say to keep emotions low and one resysopping isn't worth so much discussion. There been way too much scrutiny on the bcrats lately and I don't think this is a case to have a long discussion over considering the circumstances. He became inactive after a RFAr over four years ago and had a RFC prior on the same concerns, I think it is one of these "exceptional cases" ArbCom should mull over to resysop or not, and not worth fighting over. Secret ^account 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it is a very interesting, calm and productive conversation from my reading. Arbcom doesn't have the authority to give someone the admin bit, only Crats do. And as we have learned through my previous learning experience, Arbcom has no authority to review the Crats decision unless there is some misconduct by the Crats, and there certainly isn't. I think you are misreading this thread Secret, this is exactly how the process is designed to work, and it is working quite well: no rush, honest discussion, thoughtful review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be that the crats as a group owe it to users to decide on matters the community has entrusted to them. To simply fail to conclude on a request would be a abandonment of their responsibility. Also, I don't know why an Arb opinion would matter here. I don't see any possible question of user misconduct or uncertain identity, which is what Arbcom handles. As a practical matter a decision will occur because I'm willing to resysop and intend to do so after the 24 hour period unless another crat says they intend to make a decision to the contrary at that time. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Crats are required to act. There are very few circumstances where an editor, regardless of permissions, is specifically expected to act. The right to not act is essentially a soft form of WP:IAR. I think it is acceptable for Crats, or anyone else, to say that while policy dictates a specific action, 'I personally do not feel comfortable performing the action, and will leave it for others to act.' If no one can be found willing to carry out what policy calls for, it suggests the policy is sufficiently flawed that it needs to be fixed. That said, I agree with MBisanz's analysis above, (I'm not sure when the 3 year rule kicks in, but no one has claimed it applies here), policy dictates a resysop, and if MBisanz is willing to act, I also see no problem with that. Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree no person is required to do anything on Wikipedia, but I don't think a group (crats, admins, etc) should be allowed to collude to shirk avoid fulfilling a function they were entrusted by each of them individually claiming they were uncomfortable making the specific decision. MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't endorsing or even referring to colluding here. Colluding to refuse to resysop would be passive-aggressive, and distasteful. The "I won't say no, but I can't say yes" did seem to be a common theme that I took as sincere from all concerned. I've simply not seen that situation here before so it begged the question, which I think you've answered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it; that's simple. Crats are elected in part because of their individual history of not getting into fights. One way to not get into fights is to not actually say an opinion, but rather express an initial view and say you're open to more discussion. If you look at old crat chats, they're basically in the same form. I suspect it's a selection effect of the high RFC threshold. MBisanz ^talk 18:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In a situation like this one, I think that one or more Bureaucrat can sincerely say "I just don't know." and mean it, which could lead to the situation I described. From your responses, I basically deduced the answer to my questions to be "Bureaucrats as a group don't have the luxury of not making a decision, and at least one must make the final call.". There is no "do nothing at all" option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, if we're going to be such a small subset of the community because of the trust required, I don't think we can, as a group, avoid fulfilling the functions the community has given us. Part of this is deciding these decisions. If we want to be seen as legitimate delegates of a community function, we can't shirk the responsibility when the going gets tough. MBisanz ^talk 20:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to correct TRM's assumption about the ten-day suspension. It wasn't a mask for tool removal or any such thing; we desysopped plenty of administrators back then and if we thought he deserved it we'd have done so. The incident in front of us just wasn't all that serious by itself. Administrators make bad blocks all the time; if he hadn't blocked a user with stout friends it never would have come to arbitration. Having come to arbitration, we inevitably passed a remedy but it wasn't much. We deliberately did not desysop him, and we could have. I don't know if that helps your deliberations. Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that none of the current arbitrators (either the 2012 arbitrators or the 2013 arbitrators) were part of the Committee that decided the InShaneee case in 2007. I do remember the case from the time, however, and I think it is clear that if the Arbitration Committee had thought that InShaneee should be desysopped and compelled to undergo a new RfA to become an administrator again, they would have voted that remedy. When the case closed with a 10-day suspension remedy, and InShaneee requested and was granted the tools back at the end of the 10 days, that was the end of the matter. At the time InShaneee became inactive, there were no remaining disputes open regarding him, and so from the perspective of "under controversial circumstances" or "under a cloud," I think under the current policy he is entitled to reinstatement. :

Of course, quite independent of the arbitration case, it is debatable whether an administrator who's been inactive for almost five years should be entitled to be reinstated on request. I personally have mixed feelings about that subject, but on balance I think our experience is that most of old-time administrators who came back from long breaks and reclaimed their adminships have used resumed their use of the tools in a cautious and responsible fashion. But the community has recently discussed this at length, and the consensus was to change the policy—but also to build in a grace period before the new policy took effect, for those who returned and requested adminship back before the policy change took effect. For better or worse, it seems to me that InShaneee and the others posting on this page fall into that category. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and resysopped per my analysis above. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so much for discussion and consensus. Four bureaucrats have commented on this request. Two of us (Rambling Man and I) determined that resyop without RfA was inappropriate. A third (Deskana) expressed the view that he has leaning to agreeing with us. You then posted an analysis that came to the opposite conclusion and, without getting input from other bureaucrats or discussing it further with ourselves, you decided to proceed on the basis of your own analysis. Pleas explain. WJBscribe (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

So this is what happens when I leave a discussion alone for a day? How disappointing. Perhaps the term "bureaucrat team" should be reconsidered, because I see no team here. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

To me the recent events, both on the Polascribe matter and more recent ones seem to show that maybe we should be holding some confirmation RfBs. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A motion of no confidence in the team. Re-confirm them all? Start now in the early hours of Christmas. Close early New Years Day. Won't the editors with life-Wikipedia balance be surprised when they return? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

When all the bureaucrats run reconfirmation RfBs at the same time... who closes them? Hah, that's actually a pretty funny quesiton. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

TRM has said later that he isn't as a crat when he's asking these questions and he's stated things in this thread which presuppose a resysop will be granted. Deskana, among other comments he made, indicated he did not think InShaneee was under a cloud but then later said he thought we should not decline and not resysop. WJB, you said you wanted more input, which I and others gave. Subsequent to both your and my comments, Mackensen and NYB provided probative evidence regarding the state of affairs that existed at the time in question, which, combined with my own analysis and the other comments, I found warranted resysopping after the 24 hour waiting period. I've always thought the resysopping process involved a crat making a decision in the same way an RFA or rename involves a crat making a decision; they consult with other people, but at the end of the day, any errors in the resysopping (like if it's premature or the crat has a conflict) are the resysopping crat's responsibility. I asked if anyone felt strongly enough otherwise that they wanted to issue a decision that he should not be resysopped, but no one did. I value the collegiality of the crat team, but I've never thought of resysopping as a group decision in the same way a crat chat is. I've also commented further on my talk page to WJBscribe specifically. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say Mackensen's comments have alleviated my concern that a grave mistake was made by resysopping InShaneee. I wouldn't say his comments made me think that we made the right decision by doing it, though. I'm still particularly disappointed that you took action when we were still discussing it. But I guess there's no point in me really thinking about it anymore... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I echo Deskana's disappointment. If this was not a "group" decision, then it appears to have been an individual decision to overrule two other individual decisions. That's not the way we do things. WJBscribe (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed by the unilateral decision but from the sounds of it, I confused MBisanz into thinking I agreed with a re-sysop. I think the closest I got to that was to say that procedurally the resysop would most likely go ahead. I don't recall being any more positive than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing this wall of text, I find myself leaning toward MBisanz's assessment of the situation: I don't see that he left to avoid further scrutiny, and what scrutiny there was fairly small potatoes and didn't rise to the level of "leaving under a cloud". While I can see some valid arguments on the opposing side, I don't think there is enough there to prevent the return of the admin bit (again, based on MBisanz's assessment, above). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same boat as Nihonjoe; I would've been supportive of the repromotion. I do think that we don't need to be beholden to the 24 hour countdown from request to restoration, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I support Matt's decision and would have come to the same myself. We bureaucrats are not ArbCom lite. There are many admins in good standing who have had ArbCom remedies placed on them in the past; when the remedy is filled, the user is reinstated back in good standing unless they exhibit behavior which indicates the remedy was ineffective, and in this I believe I respectfully disagree with Will. In this case, the user left in good standing, and thus continued with my perception that asking for tools to be removed does not mean the person stops being an admin but is taking a vacation (EXCEPT in RtV cases) and thus tool restoration in this case was warranted, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft RFC

I'm drafting an RFC at User:MBisanz/Resysopping to help fix some of the concerns regarding the "under the cloud" standard. I'll probably move it somewhere in the projectspace in the coming week, but wanted to drop a note here so people can have a chance to add to it before I do so. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was bound to happen, we can't have bureaucrats without bureaucracy!:-) Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's now live at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysop request for MatthewUND

Fellow Wikipedians, I'm asking to be resysopped. I used to be a very active Wikipedian, but the distractions of life got in the way in the last few years. I intend to return to the project in the near future and I would hate to not have the admin tools. I don't want to feel that I have to "start all over" if you can understand that. Thanks! MatthewUND^(talk) 22:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any issues, per the current resysop approach. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TRM that I know of no issue under the present policy that would preclude resysopping. MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no issues which would prevent the bit being returned. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done We'd be delighted to have you back as a contributor, not to mention administrator. --Dweller (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! MatthewUND^(talk) 07:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of users resysopped by a bureaucrat

• - Wikipedia:List of users resysopped by a bureaucrat

Hi - good to see this list being updated. Please continue to add all users given/returned advanced permissions to the list - Many thanks - the list is a very helpful investigative tool - regards Youreallycan 23:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it as very beneficial for timeline investigations and had done a fair bit of work on that and would like to find time soon to finish that work - User:MBisanz reverted all my efforts on 6th Dec to an ABC list diff- such a list removed the ease of seeing the recent resyops - since these are the changes which are important to investigate - on a timeline - I intend to revert to the timeline and finish the work - if you guys are happy with that to just add a user to the end of the list, easy - thanks - If User:MBisanz , who I am sure can do it in a couple of seconds with a script or a bot would do it for me, I would really appreciate that - or if he, or others, would please explain why he/they think an ABC list is more beneficial, thanks Youreallycan 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was because it was more difficult for resysopping crats to add to the timeline because it's the third item in the template. I balanced it with the fact the sort feature at the top of the table means that anyone who wants to create a timeline can click the sort feature and it will display them in that order. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

third item in the template? anyone who wants to create a timeline can click the sort feature and it will display them in that order - I want to do that - please provide a diff or a link to help me do that? - IMO your revert hides recent activity, which is why the list was created, and makes it much more difficult to see what is going on - - Youreallycan 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@MBisanz, "anyone who wants to create a timeline can click the sort feature and it will display them in that order? " - Where is that then? Youreallycan 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See the red circle on File:Resysops-help.png. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion that led to the creation of this list was quite clear - that it is the recent :Bureaucrat permissions that are valued to investigate not the years old ones - as such - ABC is detrimental to assist investigations of the permission returns - Red flag is perhaps something you are knowledgeable about but I have been here years and have no idea - your revert of my work was and is detrimental to investigation of the Bureaucrats activity/actions and as such please revert to a timeline - thanks - Youreallycan 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Help:Sorting? It looks fairly well documented. I don't have a script to sort it by date, which is another reason why I picked alphabetical order when trying to figure out how to do it. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you had a script for ABC was not an excuse to revert my work or a reason to see it as beneficial - In regards to the reason the list was created, it wasn't - It more serves to hide the recent returns of privileges by the Bureaucrats. Please revert my work to the list back in, if you have time to help complete the timeline I would also appreciate that Youreallycan 00:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I found someone who thinks they can fix it, although I fear it will quickly become mangled in periodic updating. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Great - thank you - Youreallycan 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to all Bureaucrats

The three year rule has now gone into effect. The grace period for all former admins that we're inactive for more than three years is now over. The grace period for all former crats is still in effect until February 1, 2013.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm so happy that's over. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

BAG Recruitment

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#Recruitment. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

comment request

• - Hi, I was thinking a bit of feedback from you guys about how you all feel about having no discretion at all in the current resyopping procedure, perhaps you feel unable to opine so as to avoid involvement? diff - Youreallycan 14:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The community has been outstanding at selecting Crats who respect or respond to the community's consensus. MBisanz's initiative, which I welcome, will help us determine what that consensus is. I'm speculating here, but I'm not sure that any of us are avoiding involvement, and I definitely don't think any of us feel "unable" to be involved. It can definitely be argued that MBisanz is more "involved" in the RfC than any other editor, though perhaps not in the manner you had in mind. --Dweller (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - If any Bureaucrats feel able to comment there that would be great - if any of you feel strongly about the issue I hope you will - thanks - Youreallycan 20:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm involved :) I'm not going anywhere near any functions besides RFC opener. I do hope other people step up to comment so that the RFC closers have lots of material to work with. MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I haz toolz back pleeze?

Hi Bureaucrats. I resigned my tools during about of frustration a year ago and I think that I would like them back now. Specifically because I have just found out that all of the editors with whom I had a frustrating experience were in fact sock puppets of banned users (three different ones!). In the course of my frustration I did behave in a decidedly ungentlemanly fashion, for which I have apologized [1], and which I have not repeated in the year that has passed since then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You will need to wait 24 hours before getting the tools back so the community can assess if you resigned under a cloud. If no issues are found, you will be promptly resysoped.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did notice the quote "My knowledge of the situation is limited to what is on this page, but, at face value, someone who got involved in a dispute about one of his or her blocks, got into a heated argument, and then decides to take some time off to cool down does not appear to be "resigning the tools to evade scrutiny"". by User:Avraham, echoed by others, so there seems to have been a general consensus at that time that a cloud did not exist. Will look deeper, but not expecting to find anything problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to wait and let the community decide, but I would like to note that at the time of my resignation 4 bureaucrats agreed that it was not to be considered under a cloud as can be seen here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Hi.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Crat, and my opinion plus $2 will get you a cup of coffee, but I feel like I have to just ask. I'm guessing you expect to be a little less blunt than you were during that time? [2] I haven't looked at all the diffs, but I'm guessing that is the stress you wanted to get away from, and this isn't your normal methods? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what I meant by my initial statement in which I also supplied the link to that case. I would like to note that all of that happened after I resigned my tools, and that I would never have done that while being an administrator. I have been reluctant to reclaim the tools because of what I did and how out of character it felt for me, but since I now know that I was correct in my initial suspicion of foulplay, and that I had simply gotten caught up in a showdown between puppets of three different banned editors (JackMerridew, SkagitRiverQueen and Mattisse) and my thesis defense, I now feel that at least there was a good reason that I lost my cool that day. I am not going to promise it won't happen again since wikipedia is a weird place sometimes, but I do promise that I will always take responsibility for my actions. If the bureaucrats decide that the best thing is to request community input then I will fully accept that, but I would respectfully decline going through and RfA. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My limited interaction with you have been positive, which is why that one diff kind of threw me for a loop. It wasn't what I was expecting to see. I'm not saying it should disqualify and I doubt it would, but I'm sure you understand why I was concerned, and I appreciate your honesty here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To be more clear, I would offer no objection to resysoping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason Maunus should not be resysopped once the standard 24 hour waiting period has elapsed. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• After a brief review, I know of no evidence that would preclude resysopping after a 24 hour waiting period. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Manus is an all round good egg. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
  
• I stand by what I said when Manus took his extended wikiadminbreak; there is no reason not to return the tools after the prescribed waiting time. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• No issues for me, and I'd love to use some discretion to "just do it" but I'm sure it'd create even more unnecessary dramaz if I resysoped three hours too early. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#January 2013

As of January 2, the following should be desysopped per the inactivity administrators policy:

• ClockworkSoul (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• CloudNine (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Dsmdgold (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Jtdirl (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Kakofonous (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Lifebaka (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Qwghlm (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• Redwolf24 (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• The-G-Unit-Boss (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)
• UberScienceNerd (talk · email · contribs · deleted · logs · last entry · listuser · centralauth · target logs · userrights)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if there is any paperwork I missed. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow that sucks. We lost 10 here and only promoted about 8 in the last 4 months. Not counting the ones we lost over the last 4 months. I hope this trend doesn't continue or Jimbo might need to grab a mop and bucket and help out at AFD! I just looked and if I include February 2013 we lost about 49 and only gained 8 since September, plus the 2 or 3 we might get this month. Thats a 4-1 loss. Yikes. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worse for the whole year of 2012, don't look (for your own sake). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember that none of these admins edited in the past year, so it's not as though we lost a net 2 admins. (X! · talk)  · @168  ·  —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is important to note that despite it not effecting active administrators in that sense, we still lost around 70 admins total from 2012 to 2013 (it would have been more, but the long-term inactive policy drove quite a few administrators back). Regardless of how they were desysopped, or how active they were a month ago, any year where we desysop more than we promote is bad. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Large usurp

I wanted to bring this particular usurp request here for wider review. The requesting user owns the SUL to it, has 7,000 edits on de.wiki, and has 2,000 edits on en.wiki. The en.wiki target user has 5,500 edits, but has been blocked since 2008 for abusing sockpuppets. Also, the contributions' history shows the blocked user made an edit to another person's talk page in 2009. I believe that edit was imported from de.wiki after the block was made. While I know we generally don't permit usurps of this magnitude, I'm included to grant it because of the requesting user's history of positive contributions, his ownership of the SUL and the target user's indef blocked status. But I'd like more opinions on the matter. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I too would be inclined to grant it. Attribution will maintained even if the name of the blocked user is "Griot (usurped)". -- Avi (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with this usurpation happening. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat something that I said a few months ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 98#Making the usurpation process more flexible, in response to a proposal by User:Ndiverprime, begun after his failed attempt to usurp User:Ndiver (see also Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 25#Username:Ndiver).

I am extremely uncomfortable with widening the usurpation process; it puts bureaucrats in the awkward position of trying to decide which individuals have done more to 'deserve' a particular username, and which individuals can be declared second-class members of the community subject to forcible renaming. It also elevates a username from being a simple identifier to being something that an editor has to earn and deserve – and something to prized and fought over – which seems a tad silly and likely to lead to unnecessary and completely-avoidable conflict.

Wikipedia editors who want to use SUL across all projects have two choices when they find their preferred username in use on one of the projects. First is to ask politely if the other individual would be willing to accept a change of username; that was tried and failed here. Second is to consider a username change to a name that is available on all projects; this choice is almost always possible, but I get the impression that Ndiver has not considered it (or has dismissed it out of hand). Third is to accept the things that cannot be changed and move on.

In the particular case of Ndiver, the second choice doesn't seem overly onerous. He has made edits on only two projects as Ndiver (Global account info, 147 edits on frwiki, 74 edits on specieswiki), and just two edits not related to his usurpation campaign on as Ndiverprime on enwiki. His contributions have been thorough and valuable, but frankly they aren't that extensive, and he wouldn't have a problem (re)establishing his reputation in association with a new name. If he must have cross-project SUL, he can pick a new name, file the two rename requests, and be done with it.

In the case of Griot(-de), he has substantial contributions to only one other project (dewiki) as Griot, and he can request a rename there if he feels SUL access across all projects is sufficiently important to him. While enwiki's Griot was deservedly blocked, it's not clear to me that it was a vandalism-only or trolling-only account (indeed, it appears that that was not the case) and that it would not be appropriate for us to decide that he has somehow lost the 'right' to have his chosen name on his contributions—despite the ban he is now under. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, as I feel that we should honor requests from editors in good standing versus those in bad standing. It's specifically the latter that has me convinced; if someone has been indefinitely blocked (especially for socking), I frankly don't really care about what they may or may not want. Attribution is still being preserved (so we're not violating their authorship rights), just not with the name they would prefer. It's a shame that they don't like it, but it's also a shame that they repeatedly used sockpuppets to disrupt the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)