→Resysop request (Cyp): comment |
m →Resysop request (Cyp): clarify |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:::{{u|Maxim}} to clarify, I'm not uncomfortable from a policy point of view and agree this is the wrong venue to change policy. Cyp has replied to some comments above - I'm really not sure what else we should expect from him. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
:::{{u|Maxim}} to clarify, I'm not uncomfortable from a policy point of view and agree this is the wrong venue to change policy. Cyp has replied to some comments above - I'm really not sure what else we should expect from him. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment:''' I can appreciate the potential concerns raised by people above, but I don't see any sound policy reason to deny the bit in this case. He clearly qualifies under the current policy. If people want to change the policy, they can open an RfC. Otherwise, I see no valid reason to deny the re-twiddling. I'm sure plenty of people will keep an eye out to see if the bit is being abused at all. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
:'''Comment:''' I can appreciate the potential concerns raised by people above, but I don't see any sound policy reason to deny the bit in this case. He clearly qualifies under the current policy. If people want to change the policy, they can open an RfC. Otherwise, I see no valid reason to deny the re-twiddling. I'm sure plenty of people will keep an eye out to see if the bit is being abused at all. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Is there any policy that says we ''have to'' do this? If not, what good reason is there to do it? It exposes the project to risk, has no upside I can think of, and is clearly opposed by a significant number of the non-bureaucrats who have commented so far. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I do not think policy compels us to return admin tools to Cyp, and I will not be doing so. In support of my decision, I would point out the following:: |
|||
#Bureaucrats have been given the discretion to return admin tools absent controversial circumstances. We are not robots and are expected to exercise good judgment in exercising that discretion. Such minimal activity is of obvious concern and to my mind can rise to the level of controversy. This is not the case of a once active editor who went away, or who made low use of the admin tools whilst being active as an editor. A decade with about 100 edits and no admin activity should be enough for us to say that controversial circumstances exist. |
|||
#I think concerns raised above as to who controls the account are non trivial. This request follows a spate of accounts being compromised and - given the sustained inactivity - we have no way of confirming that we are returning the tools to the right person. |
|||
#We have [[WP:IAR]] for a reason. This is an obvious case. I do not see how Wikipedia will realistically be improved by returning the tools to Cyp, and the risk is obvious. The discussion above shows suppor for invoking [[WP:IAR]] in this instance. As a matter of common sense, I cannot justify returning admin tools to this account. |
|||
#Finally, we are not compelled to act. If no bureaucrat is willing to return the tools, that is the end of the matter - unless the community chooses to appoint a new bureaucrat who will do it. |
|||
I therefore will not be returning admin rights to Cyp and urge my fellow bureaucrats not to do so either. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:01, 27 December 2016
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
It is 05:34:34 on May 23, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
debit
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.
I don't need my admin bit anymore, please remove it. I don't need any additional bits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Enjoy your break. 28bytes (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your service. Mkdwtalk 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Boing! is sad :-( - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 is also sad :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dammit. This is not what I wanted for Christmas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- All the best Dennis, hope to see you back. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is not a good Christmas present. Worse than the usual coal I get in my stocking. Bah, Humbug! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- This sucks. Whatever has gotten to you (and this place definitely can get to you), I hope you can work through it and return. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hope you will be back after taking a break.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- We are better with you than without, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Request for clarification on two queries
With respect to the timeline of Supports and Opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem.
- On 22 December, there were 7 Supports and 8 Opposes.
- On 23 December, there were 6 Supports and 10 Opposes.
The current day is not over yet but the Opposes till this time outnumber the Supports again. I have a request for clarification on two queries:
- Will the crats have a discussion on whether to extend this Rfa beyond its slated closure time?
- If yes, will this be a public discussion through say a crat chat or will this be discussed privately?
If the answer is no to extending this Rfa, that's fine by me too. Thanks. Lourdes 11:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Any single bureaucrat may decide to close, hold, formally extend, restart, or move the RfA to 'crat chat. The content of the RfA discussion would be the primary factor. Through inaction of all of us, the RfA can be informally extended - that situation does not typically extend beyond a day. We strive for transparency and 'crat chats are normally open and on-wiki. Private discussions are rarely held for crats - unless there is something that would invovle arbcom, checkusers, etc - I don't see a private discussion being needed in this case. — xaosflux Talk 15:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lourdes 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- Other than renames involving privacy concerns, we do not discuss bureaucrat actions off-wiki. You can always expect transparent explanations/discussions of our actions here in public, and if some of us disagree we will make that clear and explain why. One of my greatest frustrations with this project over the years has been the amount of discussion that has moved onto private forums. It is understandable where serous privacy issues are involved. It is not if it is done to avoid public scrutiny or to hide internal disagreements. I hope bureaucrats never do so - and hopefully having WP:CRATCHATs on-wiki reinforces that goal. WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. Lourdes 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I have now closed this RfA as successful. Giving that the question was raised here, I think it best to explain why I didn't extend the duration of the RfA (beyond the 2 hours or so after the scheduled end time that had already elapsed). Whilst exceptional circumstances can justify extending the length of an RfA, it is my firm view that they need to be exceptional. The two examples that spring to mind are evidence of improper canvassing (in which case more time may be needed to dilute its effect) or the emergence of new evidence that came to light late in the discussion (in which case participants may need time to consider whether it affects their stated position) - I have expressed some previous thoughts on the issue here.
Neither applied to this case. Lourdes points above to evidence of a late swing in opinion, but the newer opposers largely cited (and expressly endorsed) the same points that had been raised early in the RfA by others. Indeed, several made it clear that they had been watching for some time and waiting to make a decision. The discussion ran for the amount of time mandated by the community, there were no exceptional circumstances calling for extra time, and a clear consensus was reached. WJBscribe (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- An absolutely appropriate close. Thanks for clarifying. Lourdes 07:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- My only caveat is that given the time of year this RfA took place in, when many people have priorities other than Wikipedia because of various holidays, combined with the very strong ending trend in the number of opposes, a decision to extend would, I think, have been quite defensible The moral here, it seems to me, is to tell people not to mull over their !voting decisions for too long if they have reservations, for fear that legitimate concerns will be pushed to the side if they aren't registered early enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, that was just the expression of my opinion, I'm not asking for any action of any sort. Perhaps in the future, no RfA should start between December 15 and January 3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ivanvector's RFA started December 20. It has two more days to go and currently stands as the 9th most participated RFA of the year putting it in the top 25% percentile. In the last 24 hours there were an additional 10 support votes (between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day). Using that rate of participation, we can project Ivanvector's RFA to end up in the top 15% percentile for the year. Likewise, Ad Orientem's RFA began December 18 and closed December 25. That RFA was the 7th most participated RFA of the year in the top 20% percentile. In 2015, the RFAs that closed December 20 and 23 were among the highest participated of the year as well. This may suggest that late December is a relatively high point in participation at RFA. I can only assume because while people tend to spend time with family, they also have time off from work or school. December has always had a high number of RFA candidates as well which also suggests people select it as a suitable time for themselves as well. Mkdwtalk 23:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, that was just the expression of my opinion, I'm not asking for any action of any sort. Perhaps in the future, no RfA should start between December 15 and January 3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- My only caveat is that given the time of year this RfA took place in, when many people have priorities other than Wikipedia because of various holidays, combined with the very strong ending trend in the number of opposes, a decision to extend would, I think, have been quite defensible The moral here, it seems to me, is to tell people not to mull over their !voting decisions for too long if they have reservations, for fear that legitimate concerns will be pushed to the side if they aren't registered early enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
- An absolutely appropriate close. Thanks for clarifying. Lourdes 07:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Bot Approvals Group candidacy (Wugapodes)
Hello 'crats, would someone please review and close: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Wugapodes? I (!voted in it already). Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Resysop request (Cyp)
Cyp (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
Sorry I haven't been very active, but I'd like to request admin/sysop status back, if possible. Κσυπ Cyp 15:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cyp I'm not seeing any policy reasons to deny this. There is a customary 24 hour hold for comments on these type of requests. With only 9 edits in the past 4 years, you certainly are on the light side of activity - please be sure to review current policies and procedures before jumping back in to administrative tasks. Personally, I do hope you will actually be active - we are in need of admins to help with backlogs. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (Non-bureaucrat comment) I appreciate that there is no policy based reason to prohibit this, but it irks me that we will give back administrator user rights so easily to someone who hasn't been around for so long. I don't mean to imply that you don't possess the temperament or character to be an administrator Cyp, but hardly more than 100 edits and no administrator actions taken over the course of the last 10 years, with just 9 edits in the past 5 years, doesn't give me confidence that you could know the current rules and practices well enough to be fully trusted with the administrator toolset, even if you happen to give them a cursory read. It's certainly a fact that you wouldn't pass an RfA today. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why we need to rethink our inactivity policy for administrators. At the very least, we should require one administrative action rather than just an edit over a certain period of time in order to retain the ability to request resysop. If you let your driver's license expire and don't renew it for five years, you have to take the driver's test again. The same philosophy applies here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Administrators is right around the corner if you want to start an RfC on changing the policy. — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Am I correct in assuming any pending RfC will not influence this request? If so, there's no great urgency. ~ Rob13Talk 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Starting a new RfC today would not put this specific request on hold. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just doesn't want the page cluttered up with complaints. Don't worry, I suspect that there will be plenty concerning this one. Quite intentional (and permissible) gaming of a weak process. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cyp, I really can't see how you could possibly know our current policies and guidelines. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyp you said you were curious about what the Admin functions looked like and 3 editors responded supporting you, one of them a current Admin User:Jimfbleak that in fairness I'll ping (the other two editors aren't active). Doug Weller talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Moreover, Cyp didn't use the tools much after being promoted. 2005 was the last year in which he made even a hundred edits. I assume that Cyp is acting in good faith here, but the best thing right now would be for him to withdraw his request for a resysop. Furthermore, we very much need to have a community discussion about our resysop policies for long-term inactive former admins. Lepricavark (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think this request will face substantial opposition from the community and be a rare instance where a re-sysop was done under a cloud. Mkdwtalk 01:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion about the inactivity policy at WT:Administrators. ~ Rob13Talk 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I think this request will face substantial opposition from the community and be a rare instance where a re-sysop was done under a cloud. Mkdwtalk 01:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Moreover, Cyp didn't use the tools much after being promoted. 2005 was the last year in which he made even a hundred edits. I assume that Cyp is acting in good faith here, but the best thing right now would be for him to withdraw his request for a resysop. Furthermore, we very much need to have a community discussion about our resysop policies for long-term inactive former admins. Lepricavark (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cyp, I really can't see how you could possibly know our current policies and guidelines. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyp you said you were curious about what the Admin functions looked like and 3 editors responded supporting you, one of them a current Admin User:Jimfbleak that in fairness I'll ping (the other two editors aren't active). Doug Weller talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just doesn't want the page cluttered up with complaints. Don't worry, I suspect that there will be plenty concerning this one. Quite intentional (and permissible) gaming of a weak process. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Starting a new RfC today would not put this specific request on hold. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Am I correct in assuming any pending RfC will not influence this request? If so, there's no great urgency. ~ Rob13Talk 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Administrators is right around the corner if you want to start an RfC on changing the policy. — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why we need to rethink our inactivity policy for administrators. At the very least, we should require one administrative action rather than just an edit over a certain period of time in order to retain the ability to request resysop. If you let your driver's license expire and don't renew it for five years, you have to take the driver's test again. The same philosophy applies here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing presented so far, in particular as related to admin activity, that preludes a resysop. Unless evidence can be produced that it was the desysop was under a cloud (which I would be surprised by as it's somewhat easy to check given the paucity of edits prior to the desysop), or there are other extenuating circumstances brought to this forum, Cyp would be resysoped after 24 hour wait period is over. As xaosflux mentioned above, this page is not right forum to rehash the inactivity policy. Maxim(talk) 01:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Although I understand the applicable policies, I believe it would be appropriate to ask Cyp if he has any comments to the responses above, before acting on his request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- As a side note, how do we know this is the same person who went completely inactive from December 2014 to November 2016? Lately, we've had many accounts compromised who re-used passwords on other sites. It's almost guaranteed at least one inactive administrator account could be compromised, given the fact that even heavily active admins and Jimbo Wales screwed up and re-used passwords. How do we know it isn't this account when this editor was sporadically editing up until 2014 with no interest in reclaiming the mop, then reappeared just after administrator accounts were being targeted? ~ Rob13Talk 02:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's possible for a bureaucrat to be satisfied that the account is not compromised, as required by the policy. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Note that the inactivity policy explicitly states "so long as there are no issues with their identity" after the note about re-sysopping. I think it's reasonable to need confirmation here given recent events and how out-of-the-blue this request is. ~ Rob13Talk 02:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- You could ask such a question for every case of a resysop with minimal activity. Would you be able articulate why, in this specific case, a reason as to why you think there are issues as to the identity of Cyp? Maxim(talk) 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree that we should ask that question in every case of a resysop with such severely minimal activity.
- This is unusual because normally inactive administrators who request resysop return far sooner than is the case here. When this editor was active, WP:User account security didn't exist. Wikipedia:Compromised accounts didn't exist. Wikipedia:Personal security practices didn't exist. As far as I can tell, we had no recommendations related to security of an account on the project. Additionally, as this account was active when we lived in a much less digital world, the importance of account security and not re-using passwords across multiple sites was largely unknown. We can reasonably say there is a much higher risk that such insecure activity took place on an administrator account in 2003 than in 2010.
- Recent events show us that individuals are actively trying to compromise administrator accounts and use them to commit high-profile vandalism that's incredibly harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. They are doing this largely through exploiting the types of vulnerabilities I mentioned above by trying passwords used on other hacked sites. So the risk of a vulnerability translates clearly into a risk of an actual compromised account at this time.
- This account resurfaced after nearly two years of complete inactivity at almost exactly the time accounts were being compromised. ~ Rob13Talk 02:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)If such a question applies to every similar resysosp, then maybe those similar resysosps shouldn't happen. If there is a reasonable question about user identity, I don't see how anyone can be satisfied that the account is not compromised. The policy doesn't require evidence that the account is compromised. As for this specific user, his brief resurrection shortly after numerous admin accounts were compromised, and silence during this discussion, is concerning. I don't particularly care though. I would not be affected at all if the account turns out to be compromised. I'm just adding my opinion. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- You could ask such a question for every case of a resysop with minimal activity. Would you be able articulate why, in this specific case, a reason as to why you think there are issues as to the identity of Cyp? Maxim(talk) 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I left a talk message at User_talk:Cyp referring to this thread. Will leave it to my fellow 'crats if this warrants extra time or not. — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Rob brings up a compelling point. The inactivity policy does specify to only resysop when there are no concerns about identity. In this case, I would argue that there are nontrivial concerns about identity. The user has made 1 edit (besides this resysop request) in the last 2 years. How do we know it's them? There's nothing to even go off of. I don't understand what interpretation of the policy could lead one to conclude otherwise. If merely asking to be resysopped is enough to establish identity, then why do we even have that clause in the policy? A clever impersonator would simply keep their mouths shut and ask for the bit back. AlexEng(TALK) 04:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- At the same time, how do we know it's not the same person? The data isn't kept long enough to run a checkuser, so really all we have to go on is their word and WP:AGF. ansh666 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, thanks for ping. FWIW, I don't support straight re-activation, given the extremely low levels of activity. I wouldn't expect it myself if I were in the same position. And given the recent problems with admin accounts being hacked, "how do we know it's not" seems inadequate. What's the point of two- factor authentication if "I'm back" is sufficient? Some editing and AVP would help to restore credibility and perhaps support ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am concerned that 2 'crats commenting in this thread that there is no policy reason to question this return request when there quite clearly are major concerns relating to identity. However, the rather ambiguously closed RFC isn't that helpful in terms of clarity in the matter. #15 seems to apply, rather than the more expressly worded #16. Whatever, identity needs to be positive, not by default. Leaky Caldron 10:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- How are there major concerns relating to identity? Unless I have missed something, no direct evidence that the account is compromised has been presented. Rob pointed out some interesting facts, but they are all completely generic. There is nothing specific to this request except the request itself. No opinion offered on other aspects right now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are several expressions of concern raised above. In my book there is no such thing as a non-major concern about identity - it is either not a concern at all or it is a major concern. Leaky Caldron 11:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see that there are any concerns about identity here that wouldn't also apply to literally every other user. Sam Walton (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- There are several expressions of concern raised above. In my book there is no such thing as a non-major concern about identity - it is either not a concern at all or it is a major concern. Leaky Caldron 11:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- How are there major concerns relating to identity? Unless I have missed something, no direct evidence that the account is compromised has been presented. Rob pointed out some interesting facts, but they are all completely generic. There is nothing specific to this request except the request itself. No opinion offered on other aspects right now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am concerned that 2 'crats commenting in this thread that there is no policy reason to question this return request when there quite clearly are major concerns relating to identity. However, the rather ambiguously closed RFC isn't that helpful in terms of clarity in the matter. #15 seems to apply, rather than the more expressly worded #16. Whatever, identity needs to be positive, not by default. Leaky Caldron 10:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller, thanks for ping. FWIW, I don't support straight re-activation, given the extremely low levels of activity. I wouldn't expect it myself if I were in the same position. And given the recent problems with admin accounts being hacked, "how do we know it's not" seems inadequate. What's the point of two- factor authentication if "I'm back" is sufficient? Some editing and AVP would help to restore credibility and perhaps support ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- For those raising "identity" concerns - what is an example of actions that would satisfy your concern? (Here are some things that are not available: checkuser, email, public keys, 2fa, committed identity). — xaosflux Talk 12:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe how about you even considering identity as a potential concern and flagging it up initially? Lack of an action to take doesn't mean ignoring part of the policy. Failing to see it as a concern is the concern I have about your approach. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Streping in as closer of the RFC I closed, that User:Leaky caldron mentioned, this would be a good time to apply "The community has chosen bureaucrats for their experience and judgement. The community feels that bureaucrat discretion and common sense should not be discouraged." If I were a burueacrat, these concerns would carry significant weight in my decision to re sysop this user.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding committed identity, I've sent an e-mail to the address in your PGP key. I'm not sure, but it might be enough to answer the identity concerns. Κσυπ Cyp 15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe how about you even considering identity as a potential concern and flagging it up initially? Lack of an action to take doesn't mean ignoring part of the policy. Failing to see it as a concern is the concern I have about your approach. Leaky Caldron 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
(Non-bureaucrat comment) I concur with the second comment above by both Samwalton9 and Maxim. The second through fourth numbered point by BU Rob13 would apply equally to all those requesting resysop after extremely low activity going forward, making this case not unique.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: While I still am not seeing a solid policy based reason to deny this request, I am not currently comfortable approving it personally - but respect that another bureaucrat may. Had Cyp been a non-administrator and was asking for restoration of a lesser-included permission such as template-editor or account-creator I would likely deny such a request due to the lengthy inactivity, with a suggestion to return to editing first. (There is currently more discretion afforded to administrators dealing with these non-elected security groups.) The community expectations for administrators may certainly change over time, and the policy may be in need of refreshing after a review. As far as the question of identity: I do not believe there has been anything presented to show an affirmative problem. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an attempt at a back-door desysop that is simply not supported by policy as is, neither in spirit by the letter. (This is why I never do these "procedural" desysops - I consider it to be a lot of make-work without much benefit when the admin has two years to just ask for the bit to be flipped again.) In terms of concerns as to whether the account is compromised, there are a few reasons why the account is most likely not compromised. As pertains to the November 2016 events, they are based on an individual sharing a password across several websites including Wikipedia. There is nothing in the contributions history of Cyp that would suggest a link beyond Wikimedia; furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it gets quite unlikely that a three-letter username could be readily available on another website. Just because there is a "Maxim" on another website doesn't make it me (it shouldn't be me in fact) -- similar idea applies for the name "Cyp". If we make an assumption that Cyp did not change his password over the past 10 years (not far-fetched given the activity levels), then a weak password would have been found in May 2007, when, if i recall correctly, a dictionary attack was run by the developers after a series of admin accounts were compromised because they had passwords along the lines of "password" or "fuckyou" (if memory serves me corrected at least one of these two was an actual password to admin account!). There is an interest in polyhedra images and familiarity with a deleted file in the most-recent edit, so it is more likely than not that the account is not compromised.
We don't desysop administrators because of a suspicion that they are out of touch. Had Cyp made one edit in 2015 we would not be having this discussion. By not resysoping now, it would be a back-door desysop for perceived out-of-touchness, which would never happen directly. I don't wish to set a precedent by enacting a desysop by pocket veto. Maxim(talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- In 42 minutes you can press the button.... Leaky Caldron 14:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- We elect bureaucrats for their discretion and judgement, but in fact they are as their title suggests. As a result, very little of their function couldn't be performed by a robot. This is not an "attempt" at anything, Maxim. It is a group of editors raising legitimate concerns and being dismissed in favour of policy wonkery. Can we not at least wait for Cyp to respond and acknowledge that maybe he has some reading up to do, considering he's made three admin actions ever and the last was eleven years ago almost to the day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do acknowledge that I have some reading up to do. Κσυπ Cyp 15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cyp, that's a good start. I can't speak for others, but certainly I don't intend to impugn your motives. But perhaps you can see why your request has raised an eyebrow since you haven't played an active role in the community for such a long time and that you never showed much interest in the admin tools when you were active? Could you tell us if anything in particular has prompted your return and your desire to reclaim the tools? Do you intend to be an active member of the community again? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- At the time, I think the ability to 1-click revert edits (instead of manually copying/pasting from an old revision) was reserved for admins, so that was an admin activity I did use while active. Seems that that particular thing isn't reserved for admins anymore, though. I've been busy, and I think I got automatically logged out in the month that there was a comment about me losing the admin flag if not doing anything within a month, so I didn't see it until after that month. I thought I should ask for it back sooner, but I ended up procrastinating a bit. I don't know how much time I'll have, but I intend to become active again, I hope soon. Κσυπ Cyp 16:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's been debundled since, see WP:ROLLBACK. Maxim(talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- At the time, I think the ability to 1-click revert edits (instead of manually copying/pasting from an old revision) was reserved for admins, so that was an admin activity I did use while active. Seems that that particular thing isn't reserved for admins anymore, though. I've been busy, and I think I got automatically logged out in the month that there was a comment about me losing the admin flag if not doing anything within a month, so I didn't see it until after that month. I thought I should ask for it back sooner, but I ended up procrastinating a bit. I don't know how much time I'll have, but I intend to become active again, I hope soon. Κσυπ Cyp 16:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cyp, that's a good start. I can't speak for others, but certainly I don't intend to impugn your motives. But perhaps you can see why your request has raised an eyebrow since you haven't played an active role in the community for such a long time and that you never showed much interest in the admin tools when you were active? Could you tell us if anything in particular has prompted your return and your desire to reclaim the tools? Do you intend to be an active member of the community again? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do acknowledge that I have some reading up to do. Κσυπ Cyp 15:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- We elect bureaucrats for their discretion and judgement, but in fact they are as their title suggests. As a result, very little of their function couldn't be performed by a robot. This is not an "attempt" at anything, Maxim. It is a group of editors raising legitimate concerns and being dismissed in favour of policy wonkery. Can we not at least wait for Cyp to respond and acknowledge that maybe he has some reading up to do, considering he's made three admin actions ever and the last was eleven years ago almost to the day? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Maxim. If the community wants to either tighten the inactivity requirements or grant bureaucrats the discretion to decline re-sysop requests without some indication that the former admin has returned to active editing, then we will of course abide by that. But we can't make up a pretext for denying an allowed-by-policy resysop request simply because some editors think the current activity requirements are too lax. Based on the edits Cyp has made I'm not seeing a cause for doubting their identity that couldn't equally be applied to any editor with a similar activity pattern. I would agree, though, that we shouldn't rush to flip the bit while discussion is ongoing. Let's see what the other 'crats have to say. 28bytes (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The community has chosen human beings to do this job, rather than having these requests fulfilled by bots. That means using good judgement and applying WP:IAR in extreme cases. At the very least, please wait for Cyp to explain why he wants to be an admin again. SarahSV (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just going to ask the same question. Cyp hasn't been an active member of the community for over a decade. Why does he suddenly want the tools back? And would it really be problematic for the crats to invoke IAR for the sake of the community? I understand that this is a slippery slope and a potential trendsetter, but the community does not stand to benefit from giving the tools to someone with practically no recent editing history. I'm not convinced it would be bad to set a trend of denying the bit to long-term inactive ex-admins. Of course, if the crats do proceed with the resysop, I suspect it will further fuel the efforts to tighten the existing policy. Lepricavark (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
One possible solution would be for the 'crats to resysop, but for they and the stewards to keep an eye on Cyp for the first week, or especially the first day, with a hair-trigger on the desysop button in case of anything fishy. Heck, someone can set up an IRC bot that tracks any admin action he makes for the first week, if they're really that concerned. I know there are some unlogged kinds of admin actions, like viewdeleted
, but there's already plenty of security flaws in the way that system is set up. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure dodgy actions would be easy enough to spot. Using IAR as a justification to not resysop is a poor idea. How is insufficient activity quantified? Right now, it is three consecutive years with no edits per community consensus. I don't see why the definition should be changed on the spot like this. Would bureaucrats draw the line case-by-case? The course of action I would suggest would be to a. action the resysop and then b. revisit inactivity limits. The points brought up in this discussion are certainly all with merit, but they really do belong more in a discussion relating to tightening inactivity limits. I definitely understand the concerns coming with such a long spell of inactivity, but I am not comfortable changing the rules on the fly like this. If the inactivity rules must be fixed, which this situation suggests, let's do it properly. I agree with 28bytes to let the discussion go longer - let's where we stand after net 48 hours has elapsed since the request. To echo xaosflux's comment, albeit backwards, I am at a stage where I'm uncomfortable not approving the request. Maxim(talk) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with Maxim. Policy and precedent here is clear, and we don't invoke IAR for completely unfounded speculation. Should people desire that the policy be changed, they should start an RfC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I can appreciate the potential concerns raised by people above, but I don't see any sound policy reason to deny the bit in this case. He clearly qualifies under the current policy. If people want to change the policy, they can open an RfC. Otherwise, I see no valid reason to deny the re-twiddling. I'm sure plenty of people will keep an eye out to see if the bit is being abused at all. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not think policy compels us to return admin tools to Cyp, and I will not be doing so. In support of my decision, I would point out the following::
- Bureaucrats have been given the discretion to return admin tools absent controversial circumstances. We are not robots and are expected to exercise good judgment in exercising that discretion. Such minimal activity is of obvious concern and to my mind can rise to the level of controversy. This is not the case of a once active editor who went away, or who made low use of the admin tools whilst being active as an editor. A decade with about 100 edits and no admin activity should be enough for us to say that controversial circumstances exist.
- I think concerns raised above as to who controls the account are non trivial. This request follows a spate of accounts being compromised and - given the sustained inactivity - we have no way of confirming that we are returning the tools to the right person.
- We have WP:IAR for a reason. This is an obvious case. I do not see how Wikipedia will realistically be improved by returning the tools to Cyp, and the risk is obvious. The discussion above shows suppor for invoking WP:IAR in this instance. As a matter of common sense, I cannot justify returning admin tools to this account.
- Finally, we are not compelled to act. If no bureaucrat is willing to return the tools, that is the end of the matter - unless the community chooses to appoint a new bureaucrat who will do it.
I therefore will not be returning admin rights to Cyp and urge my fellow bureaucrats not to do so either. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)