→K6ka's RfA: re |
→K6ka's RfA: Ral315 |
||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
****I like it, too, if there's a simple switch in the RfA wikimarkup that a Crat can flick to ensure it doesn't happen on the rare (<1% IMHO) occasion that we want to extend it. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) <small>Become [[User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values|old fashioned!]]</small> 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
****I like it, too, if there's a simple switch in the RfA wikimarkup that a Crat can flick to ensure it doesn't happen on the rare (<1% IMHO) occasion that we want to extend it. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) <small>Become [[User:Dweller/Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values|old fashioned!]]</small> 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Seriously, when was the last time that an RFA was deliberately extended? I've drawn upon my (probably unreliable) memory of perusing archived RFA discussions, plus a search for "extended" in both RFA subpages and the talk archives, and have only come up with these three from 2005 and 2006, the former two of which were more like nullifications: [[[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2]]. Have there been any others? It seems to be that the number of RFA's that have been extended is more like 0.1 or 0.2% of the total than 1%. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 12:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
:Seriously, when was the last time that an RFA was deliberately extended? I've drawn upon my (probably unreliable) memory of perusing archived RFA discussions, plus a search for "extended" in both RFA subpages and the talk archives, and have only come up with these three from 2005 and 2006, the former two of which were more like nullifications: [[[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2]]. Have there been any others? It seems to be that the number of RFA's that have been extended is more like 0.1 or 0.2% of the total than 1%. '''[[User:Graham87|Graham]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Graham87|87]]</font> 12:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
::There was also [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315|Ral315's RfB]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Ral315&oldid=143886180], ostensibly extended to see if the consensus got clearer, although I think that extension illustrates why it shouldn't be done. The reasons behind the extension (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&direction=next&oldid=143885929#Ral.27s_RfB]) appeared to be a mixture between moving the close time to a more convenient time for some bureaucrats (not a good reason) and seeing how the consensus might change after very late opposition by a bureaucrat (a spectacularly bad reason). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:05, 6 January 2017
|
|
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 18:10:06 on May 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
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)
- Those are very good points. The difference in the two RfAs may lie in the fact that IV's RfA was basically all supports, while AO's started out primarily as supports, while opposes grew relatively slowly at first but then consistently after a time, so that the trend was most definitely heading toward the 75% mark when it was closed. It's my observation that there is something of a community social stigma about !voting against RfAs (I'm discounting obvious NOTNOWs and other trivial examples), and if this is indeed the case, then the holiday period may inhibit a true cross-section of community feeling. In any case, I don't see a down-side to a "no-go" zone around the holidays -- what practical difference does it make if someone becomes an admin on January 11 instead of on December 22? None that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 28 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)
I'm not sure I see the correlation between the dates mentioned and the inhibiting of a true cross-section of community feeling. Ad Orientem's RFA seemed to gain even more opposition the closer to holidays. Secondly, it's not the first RFA to see a last minute surge of opposition. Hawkeye7's January RFA comes to mind; they received 70% of their opposes (67 oppose !votes) in the last three days of the RFA. Nearly a third of those oppose !votes (21) occurred within the last 24 hours of the RFA. If the stigma exists about opposing RFAs, the holidays seem to have no affect on it as it occurs equally during and not-during holidays.
Creating a no go zone during the time when people are seemingly the most available to both run and participate in RFA is a downside. Mkdwtalk 20:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Godsy's RfA received a last-minute surge in support votes that pushed it into the discretionary range. Funny how nobody brought up an extension. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:47, 3 January 2017 (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 [re-sysop] 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 [re-sysop] 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)
- (Non-bureaucrat comment) The concerns about the account being possibly compromised may suffer from the base rate fallacy. Based on the timing of the return, the chances of this being a compromised account are much higher, but it does not tell whether those chances were high to start with. Maybe they were so low that the estimated risk for this particular account to be compromised is acceptable; maybe they were so high that no account ever should be resysopped. One can rationalize that the acceptable risk was implicitly set high enough not to trigger the latter case (why have a resysop policy otherwise), but it does not help in that exact case. TigraanClick here to contact me 23:09, 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 support 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 choses 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)
- A last (and this is a genuinely heartfelt comment and not a jibe) this is a very sensible 'crat opinion that sums up not only some of the community concerns so far expressed but the actual responsibility of the 'crat role as vested in them by the community. Leaky Caldron 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If ever there was a time that IAR, a pillar fundamental principal, was going to be utilized, I can see no better time than to seek a community consensus. This effectively unburdens the bureaucrats from operating beyond their purview and ultimately leaves it in the hands of the community, the very people who appointed the bureaucrats, and asks that the core requirement of adminship, the community's trust, be assessed. Community consensus is our most powerful form of governance on the English Wikipedia and no community set policy can withstand it. Mkdwtalk 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Bureaucrat note: Cyp has provided some additional identification information that strengthens his account identity claim, this may include some private information. Additional details have been sent to the bureaucrat's mailing list. — xaosflux Talk 22:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the information posted there, I reiterate my lack of concern regarding the possibility of the account being compromised. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- That being said, I can definitely understand the concerns being raised here. The extreme lack of activity over the last many years is the biggest one, in my opinion, due to how much has changed over the last while. Hopefully, Cyp will come and let people know how he wishes to proceed in light of these concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the email, which - to my mind - strongly mitigates any concern that the account may have been compromised (it comes in the form of a Wikipedia:Committed identity). From a strict policy read (absent ignoring rules), it appears to me that Cyp is eligible for resysop. With respect to WJBscribe's comment about controversy: I would respectfully point out that the controversy that precludes resysopping is controversy at the time of desysop, not at the time of resysop (unless WJBscribe means to say that his low activity at the time of his desysop is controversial in and of itself - I don't think this scans because then this could apply to any request following a period of inactivity, effectively making procedural desysops for inactivity permanent). That being said, when I click Special:Contributions/Cyp, I am presented with a list of 250 contributions the earliest of which is from before I registered my account. That, coupled with the fact that I am no longer highly active (and thus, unable to closely watch Cyp as they resume their adminship - not having a large body of former adminship work to review) leaves me uncomfortable in carrying out this request. I would be interested to hear from bureaucrats who were appointed in 2004, closer to the time of Cyp's adminship (@Kingturtle, Pakaran, Cecropia, Warofdreams, and UninvitedCompany:). I would suggest that any bureaucrat that carries out this request be available to work closely with Cyp in the coming weeks and months, should the editor actually return to activity and undertake administrative actions. –xenotalk 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the information sent to the bureaucrat list provides fairly convincing evidence that the person now in control of the account is the same person that controlled it in 2008, and therefore it goes a long way towards addressing the third of my four bulleted points above. I remain of the view that a resysop is not appropriate for the other reasons I gave.
I don't think it makes sense to adopt "a strict policy read" in a way that leads us to a conclusion that none of us favour (no bureaucrat has yet opined that they think Cyp regaining the tools would be good for the project). We are entrusted to exercise judgment and I think what amounts to controversial circumstances needs to be considered in the round. I appreciate that other bureaucrats have been reluctant to look at circumstances after the desysop, but that seems illogical to me. In an extreme example - are we required to return the tools to someone who resigned the tools uncontroversially, but has since amassed a block log as long as my arm for edit warring? I don't think asking the community to have an RfC to specify with greater precision when & when they want the tools returned is necessary. If the community is unhappy with how we exercise the discretion, they can take it away from us - either individually or collectively - but I think we're being asked to make tough calls such as this one by applying good judgment and common sense, not a rulebook. WJBscribe (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC) - I don't have much new to say, but am opining since I was specifically tagged here. Being inactive myself, as well as regarding this as an unusual case, I am not going to check the box. That said, Cyp's RFA (which predates my own) was far from exceptional in passing at the time, and I would not object to another 'crat choosing to resysop. In fact, I would be supportive, because I dislike the notion of extending the rules regarding inactivity removal on the fly. -- Pakaran 01:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I've just seen this so, to respond to the ping, Wikipedia culture was very different back in 2003 (I joined shortly after Cyp's RfA). The guiding principle of RfAs was that they were "no big deal", and that anyone trusted by the much smaller community would be approved; trust was demonstrated by a few months of constructive editing. In the meantime, I see that Maxim has restored the bit, and I agree with the reasoning. Warofdreams talk 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the information sent to the bureaucrat list provides fairly convincing evidence that the person now in control of the account is the same person that controlled it in 2008, and therefore it goes a long way towards addressing the third of my four bulleted points above. I remain of the view that a resysop is not appropriate for the other reasons I gave.
- Based on the information posted there, I reiterate my lack of concern regarding the possibility of the account being compromised. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note: Before anything, having reviewed the information forwarded to the bureaucrats mailing list which took the form of a WP:committed identity, I've seen the verification by xaosflux, and makes it well-nigh impossible that anyone other than User:Cyp made the request, so I do not believe anyone should be worried about malicious or improper access. That being said, however, to me this is not a standard request for returns. Looking over User:Cyp's editing history, he had very, very rarely used the tool, basically three deletions in 2005. There is no record of any blocks or protections. Also, his RfA was in the early days of WP when the community was small enough that people were separated by many fewer degrees and three supports was all that was needed. That isn't a reason to remove rights, but it isn't as clear an example of community trust as more recent (even as of 2005) RfAs are. Perhaps it is a function of Wikipedia's growth, but there are many more people voicing concerns here than voiced opinions back in 2003. Therefore, in my opinion, his overall absence from Wikipedia for most of the decade and his near nonexistent administrative toolset usage make me personally uncomfortable with returning the tools without Cyp's re-familiarizing himself with the WIkipedia of today (sadly, very different than 2004) and running for RfA. So I personally will not be flipping this bit. However, I have no reason to believe Cyp would abuse any rights afforded to him and would have given him rollback (the right he mentioned) myself had not Xaos beat me to it . -- Avi (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I can completely understand and agree with most of the points raised above by other people regarding the return of the tools, but I don't see why would Cyp abuse the admin tools if they are given back. If they wanted to misuse it, they could have done it anytime before when they had the tools. I believe that Cyp has good intentions of helping and improving the project in any way they can (after all this is a volunteer project) and a low amount of activity does not mean that they can't be trusted. I would therefore like to express my support that Cyp be resysopped. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Upon being desysopped, Cyp was assured that "the userright will be restored" upon request. IAR should have been invoked then to rule out a routine reinstatement, not now; shifting the goalposts at this point is very unfair. The security worries have apparently been allayed, and many of the other concerns, while perfectly valid, could just as easily apply to many other barely-active admins who are at no risk of losing the bit. I recognize that it's increasingly unlikely a bureaucrat will come along to flip the switch, but if it helps, I'd commit to working alongside Cyp for a while to help bring them back up to speed. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Julian, how long will this mentoring last? It's all very well to say you'll do this "for a while" but it may be a while before Cyp does much It seems likely based on past behavior patterns that Cyp will make few (if any) uses of the admin rights over a number of years. You may be long retired by time problems arise, and it's not as if you could then do much if there were problems. Restoring rights because a mentoring arrangement has been lined up would be an example of WP:IAR - after all, there is no precedent for making the return of rights conditional on such an arrangement. Sorry, but I don't think knowing that you are going to hold his hand addresses the underlying issues. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I fully understand your point about IAR. Established policy sanctions the restoration of adminship here, and there is precedent for returning the bit to highly inactive former admins. In August, we cheerfully resysopped a user who had made a mere 100 edits in the previous seven years. I'll grant that Cyp's is an even more extreme case, but not by very much. We wouldn't be reinstating Cyp because of my mentorship offer, but because policy allows it, and because we always need more active admins; if Cyp says they intend to become more involved in the administrative side of the project once again, I think we should AGF and give them a chance to lend a helping hand. You're right in that I can't guarantee to always be around in the event of something going wrong - I can only endeavor to make sure Cyp has all the tools and resources they need to re-integrate into the community. This period of collaboration would last as long as it takes for me (and my peers) to be confident that Cyp is every bit as familiar with current policies and practices as any newly appointed, polished admin. I agree it isn't particularly imperative that we restore adminship here, but if we do, I'll do my best to ensure the project benefits. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Julian, how long will this mentoring last? It's all very well to say you'll do this "for a while" but it may be a while before Cyp does much It seems likely based on past behavior patterns that Cyp will make few (if any) uses of the admin rights over a number of years. You may be long retired by time problems arise, and it's not as if you could then do much if there were problems. Restoring rights because a mentoring arrangement has been lined up would be an example of WP:IAR - after all, there is no precedent for making the return of rights conditional on such an arrangement. Sorry, but I don't think knowing that you are going to hold his hand addresses the underlying issues. WJBscribe (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- This may come off the wrong way, but I mean this with the greatest respect possible. The message also thanked Cyp for his "past administrative efforts", of which there were none. So I don't think the standard message should be regarded as an infallible final word. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a generic pleasantry, not a description of policy like the part of the message I identified. Besides... "administrative efforts" go far beyond logged admin actions. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't remember exactly how much I used the admin tools when I was most active, but I think it was actually a lot more than the 3 logged actions mentioned earlier, and than the 4 times listed at [1] and 16 times listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_log_archive/November_2003. Κσυπ Cyp 05:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. I did not think that your activity was old enough to predate the logs. I apologize for my previous statement. Still, if your period of activity with the admin tools predated logs of it, then I don't understand why you feel confident that you're good to go. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd tend to use common sense, erring on the side of inaction. I'd of course check what all the relevant rules I can find are, especially before doing anything non-obvious. I'd hope someone would point out if I did anything wrong despite that. There's lots of things I wouldn't be feeling good to go on, I'd be staying away from those things until I do. Κσυπ Cyp 06:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. I did not think that your activity was old enough to predate the logs. I apologize for my previous statement. Still, if your period of activity with the admin tools predated logs of it, then I don't understand why you feel confident that you're good to go. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Given that Juliancolton has stated he is willing to mentor Cyp while he gets back up to speed, I think that's enough to flip the bit. While we are given discretion in what we do (as mentioned by WJBscribe), this particular policy really doesn't give any leeway with regard to returning the bit as long as it was not removed "under a cloud". As there has been absolutely no evidence of any sort of negatively-charged water vapor, I see no valid course other than returning the bit. If people want to start an RfC to change the policy, that is fine, but as it is currently written, we have no solid or valid reason to withhold the bit (short of IAR, which would be a really, really shaky application in this case). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Since a number of bureaucrats have given assurances about Cyp's identity, Cyp himself is aware of his need to bring himself up to speed, Juliancolton has offered to mentor, and everyone involved in this thread is aware of the need to keep on eye on Cyp's adminning, the downside seems to have been significantly decreased, so perhaps it's safe enough for a 'cret to return the bit? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the return of rights to Cyp. I think the spirit of the policy (if not the letter) does justifies not returning the bit - these are circumstances of controversy understood in any normal way. Getting admin rights and barely using them whilst making token occasional edits to hang on to them is not what the community expects of administrators. We should not reward gaming the activity requirements (3 edits in 2012, 2 edits in 2013, 2 edits in 2014). Even if you don't agree that the policy covers this, I think that invoking IAR is far from being "shaky" (as Nihonjoe suggests) - I think this is a clear cut case. We would be returning admin rights to an account without any credible basis for believing they will be used competently, following a decade of inactivity. Not only would Cyp fail an RfA, he would do so spectacularly. To return the tools in such circumstances would to my mind be a failure to properly exercise our discretion in a manner that accords with community expectations. Whilst I agree that policy allows a bureaucrat to return the tools to Cyp - it does not mandate it - and I will be deeply disappointed if it happens. WJBscribe (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Generally its understood that the 'spirit' of the policies governing crat actions is that they do not get creative and that they apply wikipedia policy as it is laid out and determined by community consensus. While I have concerns about the length of time Cyp has been inactive, they like every other editor is perfectly capable of asking for help and guidance from their peers. I get a lot more worried when users with advanced tools start thinking they should not apply the policies as they are written and making stuff up in order to justify the result they want. This case is far less problematic than the other recent resysop where an Admin was re-granted their tools despite giving them up under controversial circumstances AND being sanctioned on a sister project for the exact same problematic behaviour that led to them being dragged to a noticeboard in the first place. Here we have policy supporting a resysop but you are finding reasons not supported by policy to do so, the previous there were actual policy-backed reasons not to and it was done anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no need to "get creative", then inactivity resysops should be automatic and not have any discussion. A bot can easily determine if they were desysoppped for inactivity, whether they have made an edit within a year and whether they have remained active within policy which would automatically return their tools. If it's black and white, this needs to happen. If it's not, then there's a reason why bureaucrats were elected to their position. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- They almost are always done 'automatically' in the sense that the request is made, its acted upon 24 hours later with zero quibbles. The only issue in this case is the length of inactivity (not a criteria for resysopping) and spurious concerns about identity (could be levelled at every single user inactive for X period of time) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: Would you support giving administrator rights to a brand new user on the basis that you trust them to read the rules before using the tools? Because the arguments you're making could equally be made to say that all editors should be given the rights no questions asked based on the assumption that they'll read up before doing anything. To re-phrase what WJBscribe said above, if Cyp ran at RfA it would be closed as NOTNOW within the hour. Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: No, and fortunately the policy for *granting* admin rights is suitably robust that it would support that. The policies for *re-granting* admin rights when removed for inactivity say no such thing. That the two are different is a matter for the community to resolve at an RFC to change the policies concerned, not the crats to impose on whim. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- If there is no need to "get creative", then inactivity resysops should be automatic and not have any discussion. A bot can easily determine if they were desysoppped for inactivity, whether they have made an edit within a year and whether they have remained active within policy which would automatically return their tools. If it's black and white, this needs to happen. If it's not, then there's a reason why bureaucrats were elected to their position. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The policy being relied upon states After removal due to inactivity Former administrators returning to Wikipedia may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion (after a minimum 24 hour wait) as long as there are no issues with their identity and they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances. The resysopping will be listed at the list of resysopped users. The key word highlighted in bold is may - not will - 'may'. It does not state automatic or de facto entitlement. This clearly allows for 'crat discretion. When this is done as appears likely, it will represent an all time low in bureaucratic nonsense. Just 2 weeks ago the 'crats refused to pass a good RfA volunteer candidate with 138 plus support !votes who likely failed by a tiny margin to secure the necessary support. They are now willing to "return" (is that even the right word here?) tools to someone who, frankly, has no proven competence whatever in the modern era and received the tools via a vote of 3 over 13 years ago! Had it not been for a single alert received in October relating to a long distant contribution they would not have given their soon to expire so called rights a second thought. It is totally brazen hat collecting to turn up here and request powerful tools they will not be able to use without being mentored. If mentoring is a service available there are a dozens more productive candidates, including the failed RfA from 3 weeks ago. That the community will review this situation for the future I have no doubt, but the broad lack of 'crat understanding shown here is concerning. Leaky Caldron 12:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- One of the differences between this situation and the CRATCHAT a few weeks ago is that, by the way we have evolved these procedures, it takes a majority of bureaucrats in a CRATCHAT to agree that a consensus exists to close an RfA as successful, whereas only one bureaucrat has to decide to exercise their discretion to flip the bit in this context. Maybe we need to consider if that should continue. But as to your broader point, I agree - it is obvious to me which of the two editors has more community support to be an administrator, and yet we have now given the rights to the wrong one in my opinion. WJBscribe (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't been gaming the activity requirements, as I wasn't aware of them. The first I heard of anything related was apparently in 2014, when I replied to the first desysop notice, which I thought was just intended to check for deceased admins (for there to be less admin accounts to guess the password of), not to check for insufficiently active ones. Κσυπ Cyp 12:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with Leaky. If Cyp needs mentoring to be brought up to speed, we should not be giving him the tools. Common sense should prevail here. This is not about crats acting on whim, for it can be clearly seen in this thread that the opposition to re-granting the bits has been vocalized primarily by non-crats such as myself. We are asking crats to exercise discretion here. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm in two minds. From a strict reading of policy, there's no reason to deny resysopping and Cyp has engaged here which assuages most of my concerns about an ulterior motive. On the other, he hasn't been an active member of the community for many years and is hopelessly unqualified for the position. In an ideal world Cyp would withdraw this request and maybe come back in a few months after familiarising himself with the way things work in 2016 Wikipedia. That seems unlikely so the rights should probably be restored and we just have to hope that Cyp has the sense to look before he leaps, and in the meantime we should work on a new policy to deal with scenarios like this in future. After all, before the inactivity policy Cyp would have had access to adminship in perpetuity just by virtue of having been around a long time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Decision by Maxim
The TL;DR of this comment is that I have restored the bit.
Out of the several bureaucrats that have commented on this request, only WJBscribe is firmly against returning the bit. Several bureaucrats are not against returning but do not wish to do so themselves. The paucity of edits and actions in the last 10 years is definitely of concern to me. However, I feel that making up rules on the spot is a worse decision than returning the bit, and for that reason, I have restored the bit. For everyone interested in admin inactivity, [2] should be of particular interest. You will find that similar examples are not uncommon: it ranges from admins consistently not managing 50 edits in the last year, to a handful of edits per year for the past several years. As much as I don't want to single anyone out, I must comment that while Cyp would be on the more extreme end of inactivity, comparable editing histories over the past few years definitely exist.
I would like to further point out two discussions, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins, and Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 13#Restoration of the tools (proposal). In the first discussion, the one-year inactivity rule was approved, largely in response to questions as to account security. In the second, the three-year inactivity rule was approved. Note that in the second discussion, going on a case-by-case basis via bureaucrat discretion was thoroughly opposed. The consensus from these discussions was more towards removal being a procedural action.
If we must draw a line on inactivity -- and that's something to strongly consider -- then it ought to be done properly, that is, not by a bureaucrat noticeboard discussion, and via RFC as was done in previous, similar cases. Useful proposals would be setting more rigorous activity limits and criteria for resysop. While I speculate a bit here as I cannot process all the data from the adminstats link, I think if you were to desysop all admins with less than ~50 edits + actions in a calendar year, you'd probably reduce the admin corps to levels where yearly reconfirmations may well be feasible, and thereby potentially breaking the RfA logjam as it would more easy-out and easy-in. Just a thought. Note that there's a discussion on this topic going on at Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Maxim(talk) 16:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Noted. Whilst I disagree with and regret your decision, I respect it. These are not easy calls to make. WJBscribe (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- WJBscribe wrote what I was thinking. We should now move on to an RfC. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Phenomenally late to this party, sorry, but I agree with much of Maxim's thought process and definitely agree with the decision. I also agree with everyone who said it wasn't easy. As ever, I'll watch any developing community consensus on these matters with interest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears there is three administrators who are pending desysop now that it is the beginning of the month. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you all for your service.
- Briangotts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- JeremyA (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
— xaosflux Talk 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Resysop request (Kim Dent-Brown)
Kim Dent-Brown (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) By a bizarre coincidence I came back to make a first edit to Wikipedia in a couple of years ONE DAY after my bit was withdrawn! I have been busy in a new job but have more time to be active in editing and admin tasks now (though I expect I will not be as active as I used to be at AN/I.) My home city of Hull is UK City of Culture in 2017 and I expect this is where I will be making most of my edits. I realise from reading the discussion above that these requests are not necessarily automatic and would be happy to answer any questions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bureaucrat note: No issues here, and a very welcome return from me. Our procedures mandate a 24 hour wait for editors or crats to raise any possible issues, but I'd love to be the one that returns your bit tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bureaucrat note: I see no issues with returning the bit after the waiting period. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, had they edited before I pulled it yesterday it would still be there. — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Done With pleasure. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to modify administrator inactivity policy
I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
K6ka's RfA
Right now, with 1 day and 21 hours left, K6ka's support percentage is at 78%. (Their graph of support percentage over time is here), I would like to request that even if K6ka doesn't hit the 75% mark by the end of the usual 7 day period, his nomination not be closed automatically, as Ad Orientem's was when it was at 78%. The RfA should either be extended to see if the downward trend will continue, or if supports will pick up and push K6ka's percentage up, or, at the very least, there should be a Crat Chat sbout the nom, and it should not be unilaterally closed by a individual Bureaucrat. The Ad Orientem action was, I think, a bad precedent: neither 7 days nor 75% is set in stone, and circumstances and judgement should be taken into account by the Bureaucrats: that's why they earn the big bucks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I assume you similarly supported extending Godsy's RfA, which was trending upward near closing time? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Trending updward? I think not" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the last 2 days, it went from being outside the discretionary range, to 69%. You're suggesting that even if K6ka's downward trend stops now, and stays above the discretionary range, it should be extended. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Forgive my bluntness, but that's just crap. It was essentially down in the mud from the end of the first day to the end of the 7th. A tiny little upward trend from about 64% to 68.5%, which then levels off is not an indicator of a general upward trend, and if you think it is, I hope you're not a Wall Street investor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- In the last 2 days, it went from being outside the discretionary range, to 69%. You're suggesting that even if K6ka's downward trend stops now, and stays above the discretionary range, it should be extended. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Trending updward? I think not" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind that Ad Orientem's RfA was closed without discussion despite a sharp downward trend at the tail-end, I think this action on K6ka's RfA could be interpreted as favoritism. I think the correct way to do this is to discuss a change in the policy of how RfAs time limits are handled, not to request special action a specific RfA. AlexEng(TALK) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have no problem with discussing changes for the future, but now is now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I will restate here, as I have explained elsewhere, that we do not extend RfAs because they are trending upwards or downwards. RfAs are closed as soon after the 7 days as a bureaucrat is available to close them. Extensions are exceptional and I see no good reason to depart from precedent - i.e. extensions where there is evidence of canvassing or significant new evidence comes to light late in the discussion. As to whether a WP:CRATCHAT, that will depend on whether the closing bureaucrat (who may or not be me) assesses the RfA as showing a consensus or not.
As an aside, it isn't useful to have someone post here every time an RfA looks like it might close somewhere in the discretionary range:
- If you want mandatory WP:CRATCHATs between certain %s, start an RfC and try to establish a consensus in support of your position;
- If you want to change the length of RfAs, or have a set extension if they finish between certain %s, start an RfC and try to establish a consensus in support of your position;
- If you don't trust some/all bureaucrats to do their jobs, seek our recall or get more people who you do trust promoted.
Needless to say, I stand by the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem close, and do not regard it to have been controversial. WJBscribe (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I am asking Bureaucrats to do their jobs. We give them the power because we respect their judgment, and we do not expect them to become automatons when a bell rings after 7 days. In point of fact, Bureaucrats are not obliged to give the bit to anyone if, in their judgment, the rationales presented are not convincing, no mater what percentage of votes they received. Nor are they forbidden from extending RfA if circumstances call for it. If it were otherwise, we could just do away with you folks and use a bot to do the job. Your judgement doesn't come into play only when the voting is in the discretionary range of 65-75%, it is meant to be in play all the time. You should re-read the WP:Requests for adminship#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures section of the RfA main page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing not exercising judgment with not exercising it the way you would like us to. I've explained several times why I don't think it would be a good idea to make the RfA end times elastic in the way you are proposing. I'm not saying it isn't something that a bureaucrat can do, I'm saying it isn't something I'm going to (or something I think other bureaucrats are likely to do either). WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, not really. If Ad Orientem's RfA had been extended and it never went down any farther, or upticked some, you wouldn't have heard a word of complaint from me. You win some and you lose some (i.e. some people you !vote for get the bit, and some don't, some people you oppose don't get the bit and some do), it doesn't really bother me much because -- at least as far as I can remember -- noone who appears to be disastrously unqualified has gotten the bit. Sure, the problems with some were hidden, others go off half-cocked, but otherwise the RfA process is not a terrible one in that it generally produces admins who can be OK to great. I would recommend that you not take the easy path and simply write me off as a partisan, because that's really not what it's about for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, the fact that I opposed Ad Orientem's RfA does not mean that I expect them to be a rotten admin, it just means that, having examing all the information availoable to me, they didn't meet my criteria for supporting an RfA bid. From what little I've seen of their sysopping, they seem like they're doing fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, not really. If Ad Orientem's RfA had been extended and it never went down any farther, or upticked some, you wouldn't have heard a word of complaint from me. You win some and you lose some (i.e. some people you !vote for get the bit, and some don't, some people you oppose don't get the bit and some do), it doesn't really bother me much because -- at least as far as I can remember -- noone who appears to be disastrously unqualified has gotten the bit. Sure, the problems with some were hidden, others go off half-cocked, but otherwise the RfA process is not a terrible one in that it generally produces admins who can be OK to great. I would recommend that you not take the easy path and simply write me off as a partisan, because that's really not what it's about for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- BMK is referring to the line In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. One of the duties (perhaps the main duty) of a bureaucrat is to gauge consensus in an RfA and, if that involves extending the RfA then a bureaucrat is duty bound to do just that. (No comment on whether it is or is not necessary in this case.) I'm fairly sure this - extending the RfA to better gauge consensus - has been done before anyway so it's not as outré a suggestion as you make it out to be.--regentspark (comment) 01:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- There have been a few cases where RfAs have been extended, but those cases are very few and far between. I suspect it's maybe 1-2% of all RfAs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Considering the number of RfAs there have been, 1-2% would not be an insignificant number - but, unless I'm reading him wrong - WJBccribe seems to be saying that he will not consider doing it at all, no matter what the circumstances are, and that he believes his fellow 'crats wouldn't either. Given the clear instructions quoted by RegentsPark above, I don't think that is the way things are supposed to be. We shoudn't need to pass yet another rule that says "Bureaucrats should really, really, really use their bestest judgement when the support percentage of an RfA approaches the discretionary range near the end of the usual 7 days," because using their best judgment is what we expect them to do all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- There have been a few cases where RfAs have been extended, but those cases are very few and far between. I suspect it's maybe 1-2% of all RfAs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing not exercising judgment with not exercising it the way you would like us to. I've explained several times why I don't think it would be a good idea to make the RfA end times elastic in the way you are proposing. I'm not saying it isn't something that a bureaucrat can do, I'm saying it isn't something I'm going to (or something I think other bureaucrats are likely to do either). WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, I am asking Bureaucrats to do their jobs. We give them the power because we respect their judgment, and we do not expect them to become automatons when a bell rings after 7 days. In point of fact, Bureaucrats are not obliged to give the bit to anyone if, in their judgment, the rationales presented are not convincing, no mater what percentage of votes they received. Nor are they forbidden from extending RfA if circumstances call for it. If it were otherwise, we could just do away with you folks and use a bot to do the job. Your judgement doesn't come into play only when the voting is in the discretionary range of 65-75%, it is meant to be in play all the time. You should re-read the WP:Requests for adminship#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures section of the RfA main page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- At 78.14 percent at about about 124 hours into the RfA, then if the trend progresses linearly, and assuming that the trend started when the RfA began, it would already be in the middle of the range at 70.38 percent, so such a proposed crat chat would be unnecessary. Esquivalience (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:CRATCHATs are always interesting, the existence of that page evidence itself. I think they are useful, to the community even if not to the bureaucrats, whenever an RfA close is less than obvious, especially considering that RfA closers rarely comment in their close. I'd like to encourage them, but WJBscribe's word "mandatory" would be way way too strong. I don't think it is good for the community to micromanage bureaucrats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- And people wonder why RFA is so unattractive to so many qualified editors. What's wrong with you people? 'Crat chats don't actually do any good at all, except to establish a tiny internal consensus that is entirely predictable about 90% of the time; I can only think of one 'crat chat where the decision that was made wasn't obvious before it even started. (Okay, it serves a purpose: it reduces the likelihood that one specific crat will get all the flak when the obvious outcome is applied, but I don't see that as a systemic benefit.) Frankly, I'd rather see a system where at the end of the 7 day RFA, the page is automatically protected and nobody except for the closing 'crat gets to edit it after that. This entire section seems to have two chains of thought: one the "I'm worried my preferred outcome won't be achieved without exceptional measures"; the other being "more lulz, please" - which is really what 'crat chats have always been. There are real people behind those usernames, and we need to keep that in mind. Risker (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Risker, you are a smart and perceptive person and a very, very fine editor and admin, but you're just plan wrong here. As I wrote above "my preferred outcome" is not at all the genesis of this discussion, I simply want Bureaucrats to act as Bureaucrats are expected to act, and to use their judgement in doing so, and not to act automatically without thought. I disagree that Cratchats are without value, I learn a lot from them, even if I'm occasionally gritting my teeth when I read them. As for lulz, presumably you're referring to someone else, because I've gotten no enjoyment from this discussion whatsoever, just a measure of disappointment that what seems so obviously true to me is not perceived as such by others I respect and admire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I know of no instance where a 'crat has acted "automatically without thought" when closing an RfX. In every case, 'crats "use their judgement" when closing one. We have to, given all the micro-scrutiny we get over the decisions we make when closing them. 'Crat chats are (and should be) the exception to the rule. The only reason to have one is if (for whatever reason) the closing 'crat is unable to read a clear consensus from the RfX discussion. They exist for no other reason. Therefore, we can not (and will not) promise to open one in this or any other case unless whichever of us is closing it is unable to determine a clear consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Risker, you are a smart and perceptive person and a very, very fine editor and admin, but you're just plan wrong here. As I wrote above "my preferred outcome" is not at all the genesis of this discussion, I simply want Bureaucrats to act as Bureaucrats are expected to act, and to use their judgement in doing so, and not to act automatically without thought. I disagree that Cratchats are without value, I learn a lot from them, even if I'm occasionally gritting my teeth when I read them. As for lulz, presumably you're referring to someone else, because I've gotten no enjoyment from this discussion whatsoever, just a measure of disappointment that what seems so obviously true to me is not perceived as such by others I respect and admire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmmm...I kind of like the idea of a bot protecting the page at 7 days and one minute. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- That might mean that people don't have to come and make noise here to alert you that an RfA is nearly finished. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I like it, too, if there's a simple switch in the RfA wikimarkup that a Crat can flick to ensure it doesn't happen on the rare (<1% IMHO) occasion that we want to extend it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- That might mean that people don't have to come and make noise here to alert you that an RfA is nearly finished. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, when was the last time that an RFA was deliberately extended? I've drawn upon my (probably unreliable) memory of perusing archived RFA discussions, plus a search for "extended" in both RFA subpages and the talk archives, and have only come up with these three from 2005 and 2006, the former two of which were more like nullifications: [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ABCD, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Weyes2a, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joturner 2. Have there been any others? It seems to be that the number of RFA's that have been extended is more like 0.1 or 0.2% of the total than 1%. Graham87 12:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- There was also Ral315's RfB [3], ostensibly extended to see if the consensus got clearer, although I think that extension illustrates why it shouldn't be done. The reasons behind the extension (see [4]) appeared to be a mixture between moving the close time to a more convenient time for some bureaucrats (not a good reason) and seeing how the consensus might change after very late opposition by a bureaucrat (a spectacularly bad reason). WJBscribe (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)