Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices

Should the policy for determination of suitability for resysopping be changed? 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Background
Bureaucrats are the users who have the technical ability to grant the administrator userright. If an administrator voluntarily resigns their administrative access or has it removed due to inactivity, they may apply to be resysopped if they have not been inactive for a three year period of time. When they apply for resysopping, a bureaucrat will determine if they are eligible to be resysopped. Specifically, the bureaucrat will determine if the user is actually a former administrator, if their account appears to not have been compromised since their desysopping, and if they have not been inactive for a three year period of time. The bureaucrat will wait at least 24 hours from the public initiation of the request for resysopping to ensure the decision is made with appropriate deliberation and the consideration of all relevant factors. While not stated in policy, a bureaucrat may decline resysopping if it is plainly evident the requesting user has committed egregious violations of policy of such a level that no person could reasonably consider them to be fit for administrative responsibilities (socking, severe copyright violations, etc.).

During the 24 hour evaluation period, a bureaucrat will determine if the user resigned "under a cloud" and is therefore ineligible to be resysopped. The present standard for evaluating if the user is ineligible is whether the former administrator "may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions." The term "scrutiny" has generally been interpreted to preclude resysopping if the administrator resigned or became inactive during a user conduct request for comment or a pending or open request for arbitration.

There exists concern that the above standard may be the inappropriately vague or fail to reflect present community expectations of administrators. This RFC seeks to better define the concept, either through approval of a more clear term, the augmentation of the present term with additional clarifiers, or a replacement of the present process. Each section below expresses a possible alteration to the current policy and non-mutually exclusive sections may be combined with each other if the closing editor feels there is consensus for multiple alterations. Feel free to add more options if you don't think an appropriate choice is reflected in those presented.

Option 1
. . . unless the administrator's permissions were removed by the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion

 * This is one valid reason not to re-sysop, but it's not the only one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it needs a comma at the end, since, per Tryptofish, there are other good reasons for a bureaucrat not to re-grant administrator privileges, including some listed below. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, though as in all things, IAR may apply as appropriate. - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with others as well (add some commas instead of periods). gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, among others. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the acceptable resysops. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, subject of course to the wording of the resolution to desysop. An obvious reason to not resysop without a fresh RfA.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * An RfA would be meaningless. This would prohibit resysopping after an RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit confused. Arb Com may desysop for a limited time, after which the bureaucrat resysop.  No matter what, bureacrats may resysop following a fresh RfA, as a fresh community consensus judged by bureaucrats trumps an old Arb Com resolution.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this RfC would prohibit resysopping after an RfA. It provides no exemption for an RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I read this whole thing as being about resysoping without a fresh RfA, and that passing a RfA will always entitle the user to adminship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is my reading too, but Hawkeye7 seemingly reads it differently. My proposed is just to eliminate this apparent ambiguity. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for option 18. My intent in drafting this was not to affect the RFA process, but apparently that was not sufficiently clear.  MBisanz  talk 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well ArbCom's an obvious reason to decline, yes. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of the good reasons to not resysop. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes (of course noting that, as the top of the page says, these are not mutually exclusive scenarios and that there may be some other reason not to resysop). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as only one of the good reasons. Shrigley (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as one good reason. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No This is stupid. It goes well beyond the intent of ArbCom when the desysopping action was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but strictly within the bounds of ArbCom's decision, which usually allows the editor to resubmit a RfA after a certain date. This should not remove that right. - Nabla (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But it clearly does remove that, even if ArbCom allowed for it. An editor will no longer be able to be re-sysopped after an RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole proposal is only about resysopping without an RfA. A community consensus that an editor should be an administrator (almost always this will be a successful RfA) obviously trumps anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. It does not say that at all. If this RfC passes, it becomes the community consensus, and will trump successful RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless the specific Arbcom resolution provides otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as one of the legitimate reasons to re-sysop. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes seems like an obvious caveat.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 03:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes plus others below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 2
. . . unless the administrator resigned during a user conduct RFC or a request for arbitration.

Discussion

 * This is one valid reason not to re-sysop, but it's not the only one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it needs a comma at the end, since, per Tryptofish, there are other good reasons for a bureaucrat not to re-grant administrator privileges, including some listed above and below. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, though as in all things, IAR may apply as appropriate. Not all RfC's are created equal... - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it is made clear that the RfC or other discussion has been started, and the bureaucrat will determine if there is any consensus before denying/accepting the resysop proposal. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. A clear brightline is preferable here. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the resignation was to avoid sanction . Someone who is a party to an RfC, but was never in danger of losing his or her bit, but resigns out of frustration, disappointment, etc. should not be considered as trying to avoid sanction in my opinion. Brightlines are good, but not when they are counter-intuitive. -- Avi (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not without bureaucrats (possibly informed by community discussion at WP:BN) having explicit power of discretion. It depends on the reason for resignation.  It depends on the gravity of the RFC/U or arbitration request.  What if the admin resigned due to a technically compromised account during an RFC/U that was bogus, staged by accounts that were blocked/banned before the admin regained control of his account?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also a valid reason to decline, though I don't know if that is part of the status quo. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Recent cases show that we need this. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but iff they were the focus of the discussion and not simply participating in them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since it is impossible to determine what would have happened had they not resigned during the RfC/ArbCom case, we must err on the side of safety and not resysop users that do so. On the other hand, we should explicitly warn users that attempt to resign under such circumstances that they are resigning under a cloud and may not get their rights back simply be requesting it from the bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the condition "if in the RfC a desysop of the user was stated as a desired outcome, and was supported by two editors in good standing (and who remained in good standing subsequently)" makes it possible to determine what might have happened. Not every RfC on an admin seeks a desysop, and RfCs shouldn't be assumed to be at the level of desysop-requesting. For an RFAR, should the RFAR have been accepted?  Or accepted by even a single Arb?  Would an incomplete RFAR by a single user count?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It doesn't matter whether resignation is a desired option at RFC, because the idea is that the user is trying to escape a rolling snowball of momentum towards that outcome. Shrigley (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as one good reason. Shrigley said it well. Nihonjoe's clarification, that the action should focus on the resigning admin, not just peripherally involve them, is also important. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No This should depend on the nature and outcome of the RfC/U, which may have completely exonerated the editor in question. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, what we need is a way to finish off those processes. Maybe by continuing and reaching a decision, despite the admin's resignation. May be by reopening them after the request to resysop, and then resysoping or not accordingly. We do not need a way to open a process, harass an admin, get him to resign out of frustration, and then not being able to get back; we do not need to further empower whomever shouts louder - Nabla (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sort of, the wording "...while the subject of an ongoing RFC/U or party to an ongoing Arbitration" would be better. If an editor goes inactive in these circumstances and later returns, then as part of the conclusion of the case the arbitration committee should be able to resolve (if appropriate) that user:example may reapply to a 'crat for resysopping without being considered under a cloud due to those proceedings. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes primarily per Deskana and Avi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 3
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.

Discussion

 * This is one valid reason not to re-sysop, but it's not the only one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it needs a comma at the end, since, per Tryptofish, there are other good reasons for a bureaucrat not to re-grant administrator privileges, including some listed above and below. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, though as in all things, IAR may apply as appropriate. This is a good example of where bureaucrat discretion comes into play. - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, with others here, and only if this applies only to a substantial likelihood based on some blatant policy violation or impending ArbCom decision, not just based on crat thinking "oh there might be consensus to desysop them there" gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how do we define "a substantial likelihood"? I can see drama being raised over that point when a faction of editors think desysopping would have occurred and another faction does not. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat vague. Not sure this is helpful in and of itself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The investigation would probably still go on, so if the result is de-sysoping, yes, if not, no.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the resignation was to avoid sanction. See above. -- Avi (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Better than Option 2. Note that it implicitly requires interpretation.  There could be other reasons.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only for the reasons mentioned by Avi. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 06:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, the wording is a little vague for my tastes; the word "appears" makes the rule fairly subjective. This is a minor point however, as I know that the bureaucrats as a group are experienced enough not going to quibble over semantics in the wording of rules. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as one good reason. Needs rewording to be less awkward, as others have suggested. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Concerned that this essentially requires a subjective judgment on what the intent of the editor was. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Similar to my reply in option 2: we need to get on and do the said scrutiny, not to deny resysoping on the grounds that no process was ever done. I would agree with some solution where the bureaucrats do this but with the condition of starting themselves whatever kind of scrutiny they believe would resysop. - Nabla (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. If there is any doubt after the at-least 24 hours during which the community can give their input then automatic resysopping should be declined in favour of RfA. The RfA should not be started by the 'crat as the requesting user may not wish to put themselves forward for that (for whatever reason) or may wish more time to prepare a statement, etc. Equally, members of the community may wish to start an alternative process for scrutiny (RFC/U or whatever). Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that my suggestion above is not for the bureaucrats starting a RfA. I do not think it would be sensible, as you explain. I suggest that if they think when the editor resigned it was about to happen a "scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping", then they re-start that scrutiny (ArbCom case, RfC/U, whatever). - Nabla (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as long as this decision is as non-subjective as possible. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes per Avi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 4
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has the reasonable possibility of leading to desysopping.

Discussion

 * I'm not convinced we need to make a distinction between Options 3 and 4; in neither case would I want to see re-sysopping without an RfA. For that reason, it probably makes sense to use the Option 4 wording instead of the Option 3 wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This, as far as I'm concerned, is the real reason not to automatically resysop a former admin. Any concern which won't lead to desysopig is irrelevant here - what's relevant is potential gaming the system to keep the sysop bit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, though as in all things, IAR may apply as appropriate. This is a good example of where bureaucrat discretion comes into play. - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; this is the best compromise between positions 3 and 5.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of. This one is a little tricky, as it contains the words "reasonable possibility" in it. Otherwise, it's the same as #3. But with the words reasonable possibility, I think we would be allowing the bureaucrat the power to decline based on a consensus that they believe would exist before it does exist, which I disagree with. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat vague. Not sure this is helpful in and of itself. better worded than 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The investigation would probably still go on, so if the result is de-sysoping, yes, if not, no.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Who makes that decision? Behavioral issues are ArbCom's purview, not the bureaucrats' purview. When it is clear, that is fine. When it is not clear, we assume good faith and good standing, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtley different from Option 3. Requires interpretation.  Not sure that this clarifies anything.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the principle of this rule, but I think I prefer Option 3 over this one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Vague and overbroad. #3 is better. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Same reason as 4 - Nabla (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes per my comments on 3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No with a preference for Option 3. This one is too subjective. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 5
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid any kind of scrutiny or discussion of their conduct.

Discussion

 * No, I think this could be too easily gamed, by claiming that there was scrutiny under circumstances that the admin wasn't even aware that there had been a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * appears to whom? Also oppose this as worded, per tryptofish. - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as my comment above (#4) and Tryptofish. If someone resigns their sysop bit because someone opened an ArbCom case with valid reasoning against them, then yes, they shouldn't get it back pending another RfA. However, if they resigned for no reason, and a crat thinks there may have been scrutiny or discussion, then that's too much power to the crat if you ask me. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I can just see the potential drama seal of approval being placed on this. What if User:Example gives up adminship and rage quits for a couple months due to being hounded upon by some editors as "harassing" a user they warned or blocked? Any situation like that could potentially make a mess if option were in place. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too broad I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too broad.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Much too broad. See above. -- Avi (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too fluffy to mean anything. Appears to who?  To "avoid any kind of ... discussion" !?!  Poorly worded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. #3 is better. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 6
. . . if the bureaucrat believes they would have successfully passed RFA at the time they went inactive or resigned.

Discussion

 * No, per Emufarmers below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guessing the outcome of an RfA? Probably not a good idea. see also below. - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, determining consensus before it exists (see my comments on #4 and #5) gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, presumptive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, one person can't predict consensus.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No Asking for bit removal does not mean the person is giving up the trust placed in him or her by the community. They remain an "admin-sans-tools" and have already completed an RfA. -- Avi (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - per comments above and per my notes here pre RFC.  7  01:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. Crats are not magically psychic and cannot predict consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 7
. . . if the bureaucrat believes they would successfully pass RFA at the time they are requesting resysopping.

Discussion
In that case, why not just abolish RfA and have the bureaucrats give adminship rights whenever and however they see fit? :-) —Emufarmers(T/C) 07:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per above. Though it's a tempting idea : ) - jc37 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No per comments to #4, 5, and 6 gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, presumptive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, one person can't predict consensus.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, see above. -- Avi (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - per comments above and per my notes here pre RFC.  7  01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if the bureaucrat expects a SNOW pass. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. Crats are not magically psychic and cannot predict consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 8
. . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to serve as an administrator.

Discussion
Agree with Sphilbrick and Firsfron above, this would be a change to the bureaucrats' traditional role, from determining consensus to replacing RfA. No. delldot  &nabla;.  21:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No It isn't the bureaucrat's remit to determine whether an editor is qualified to be an administrator, it is the Bureaucrat's responsibility to determine whether the community had made such a determination.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per Sphilbrick. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per Sphilbrick; this would change a bureaucrat's role on en.Wikipedia from a determiner of community consensus to a determiner of an individual's ability. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. though again, it's a tempting idea. - jc37 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely obviously yes. Think about the corollary: A former admin requests resysopping. A bureaucrat thinks about it, but believes that the user is not competent to serve as an administrator. That is, he has a strong reason to believe the person is incompetent and would be destructive as an admin. Must he resysop? No. No wikipedian is ever obliged to do anything. There are "must nots", but never musts for volunteers. Certainly, no wikipedian is ever obliged to do something he believes will hurt wikipedia. Now, the crat cannot be empowered to rule that the individual can't be an admin - he can't prevent someone else flicking the switch - but he can certainly refrain from doing so himself.--Scott Mac 01:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, this is worse than determining consensus before it exists (#7), as it gives the crat the ability to just bypass RfA and give the sysop bit to anyone they feel fit. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The RFC is terribly badly organised. But this only refers to cases of former admins asking for the bit back (I think).--Scott Mac 03:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. It should be read with the initial phrase "A bureaucrat may resysop a former administrator . . ." My apologies for failing to organize it in the most sensible manner.  MBisanz  talk 03:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doh, I'm horrible. Sorry all. Real comments: I think this is a good start, but I think this is only a last check, after checking the rest. If the former-admin checks out on all of the other ifs (no sanctions, yadda yadda), then this is the last one for a crat to agree to before resysopping. However, it shouldn't be a catch all, such as "I'm a crat and I think he's good so even though the community voted to desysop him I'll resysop him because he's 'competent'" or things like that (with AGF in mind). gwickwire  talk edits 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, one person can't predict consensus.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * HECK NO This pretty much removes the community from the process and makes we bureaucrats arbiters of the bit. Either the person has the trust of the community as evidenced by a successful RfA, no resignations to avoid overt community trust-removal, and not enough time away from the project to indicate that the community believes that enough has changed to warrant a new RfA (currently 3 years), or not. For as long as I have been associated with the project, my understanding has been that trust granted remains until removed. This would change everything, in my opinion, and not necessarily for the better/ -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes.  "incompetent to serve as an administrator" is one excellent reason to no resysop.  See WP:IAR if all else fails.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. A proposal in the opposite manner, declining the bit if not confident, would be ok in my opinion, but I don't like the wording in this.  -- No  unique  names  06:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. Crats are not magically psychic and cannot predict consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 9
. . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to be and will serve as an active administrator.

Discussion

 * No It isn't the bureaucrat's remit to determine whether an editor is qualified to be an administrator, it is the Bureaucrat's responsibility to determine whether the community had made such a determination.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per Sphilbrick. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per Sphilbrick; this would change a bureaucrat's role on en.Wikipedia from a determiner of community consensus to a determiner of an individual's ability. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sphilbrick and Firsfron above, this would be a change to the bureaucrats' traditional role, from determining consensus to replacing RfA. No.  delldot   &nabla;.  21:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably shouldn't be in the business of determining "compentency". I have images of standardised tests in our future : ) - jc37 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused on how this is different from #8? The only addition is "will serve as an active administrator", which is the only reason we appoint admins through RfA, is that we expect them to be active. For more of my opinion see #8 (and the numbers I referenced there) gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see #8 and my response there for a new explanation of this answer. gwickwire  talk edits 04:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, one person can't predict consensus.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * HECK NO per above. -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above comments seem to forget that the requesting user has previously passed an RfA. (ignoring very early admins...) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per 8 -- No unique  names  06:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. Crats are not magically psychic and cannot predict consensus. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 10
. . . if the bureaucrat believes in his own judgment that the user should be an administrator.

Discussion

 * No It isn't the bureaucrat's remit to determine whether an editor is qualified to be an administrator, it is the Bureaucrat's responsibility to determine whether the community had made such a determination.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per Sphilbrick. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Per Sphilbrick; this would change a bureaucrat's role on en.Wikipedia from a determiner of community consensus to a determiner of an individual's ability. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sphilbrick and Firsfron above, this would be a change to the bureaucrats' traditional role, from determining consensus to replacing RfA. No. delldot   &nabla;.  21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. As noted, this would change things more than a bit. - jc37 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No per my response to #4,5,6,8 gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, one person can't predict consensus.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OY VEY I hope this was put in to make sure everyone votes no on something. Please see the above two vociferous "no"s for reason. -- Avi (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Dangerously poorly worded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Dangerous idea.  -- No  unique  names  06:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Vague and overbroad. Crats are not monarchs. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 11
. . . unless the bureaucrat finds that subsequent to their desysopping, the user acted in such a manner as to lose the community's trust in their ability to serve as an administrator.

Discussion

 * I'm not sure how the crat would be making this determination. I'd prefer to spell it out more clearly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. This should be a community discussion. - jc37 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, per answers above and per Tryptofish gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, one person can't predict consensus, a community discussion would be needed.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No /sigh. Getting repetitive. Takes the decision out of the community's hands and gives it to the bureaucrats. A non-starter. -- Avi (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This reminds of a need for a standard desysop procedure. "Would very likely fail the desysop procedure, which would have been invoked had the user retained admin status" is one good reason to not resysop.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Overbroad. Crats do not determine community trust; the community does, e.g. through RFA, RFC/U, RFAR, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 12
. . . unless they resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions of any kind.

Discussion

 * I think Option 4 is more precise in its wording, and so I would prefer it for that reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - "of any kind" is waaay too vague. - jc37 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as that leaves it up to crat discretion on what is and isn't a sanction/scrutiny, which is too much crat power if you ask me. That should be left to community consensus. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, to vague.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No Too vague. Admins often make mistakes that result in sanctions that have no bearing on their admin tools (e.g. plenty of admins get caught up in 3RR, that doesn't make them bad admins). -- Avi (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Admins should be trusted.  "Sanction", even of any kind, implies a lack of trust.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Vague. #4 is worded better. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 13
. . . if the user's rights were removed as the result of a mistake.

Discussion

 * Feel free to modify this wording if it doesn't make it apparent that this includes cases where a bureaucrat or steward performed an emergency desysopping, but it turned out that the account wasn't compromised. —Emufarmers(T/C) 07:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a minor issue, but I agree with it in principle. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, this would be a fine reason to resysop, although of course not the only possible one. I would be fine with this including if it were for "a mistake or emergency desysopping that was later cleared up" or words to that effect, as mentioned by Emufarmers above.  delldot   &nabla;.  21:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "A mistake" is too vague. There's a difference between a technical error, and believbing a desysop was a mitake in judgement. - jc37 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a suitable case for IAR. We correct mistakes when we find them in all WP processes.  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we add 'a mistake in determining whether an account was compromised, after proof the account is not compromised ' to the text above, then sure that makes sense. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not needed. There are times that an admin will say, could you demop me so that I can try something (and do not want to create an alternate account that may never be used again), and would not expect to be logged as a resysop, or if a crat accidentally desysops the wrong admin, it is obvious that the mistake would be corrected as well. No set of instructions can cover every possibility, which is why we apply commonsense. But seriously how often is this ever going to happen? I would doubt that any admin got the mop accidentally or lost it accidentally. Apteva (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not needed, per Apteva.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious. This is not a resysop, this is correcting an incorrect bitflip. -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not needed. Bureaucrats don't need this level of instruction.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the idea behind this, but as several users have mentioned above it's probably not necessary to codify this explicitly into policy. Certainly I disagree with the vagueness of this wording, and if people wish to have these exceptions codified then we must be more specific. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Vague and unnecessary, per many of the above comments. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This is obvious and doesn't need to be included in policy. —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  05:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, but it is so obvious that I doubt we need it. - Nabla (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but not needed, this fixing a mistake not a 'resysoping'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 14
. . . provided no serious concerns about their administrative conduct have previously been raised in an WP:RFC or WP:RFAR, and provided the administrator did not apparently resign or become inactive for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions.

Discussion
I'm adding this suggestion because I think the other options only address previous misconduct from two directions, which don't catch the entire problem, namely: option 1—5, and 12, are all about evading scrutiny, while option 6—11 all call for a quite disproportionate whole new remit for 'crats, by requiring them to determine whether an editor is qualified to be an administrator. That would both give them an inappropriate amount of power (as Sphilbrick points out), and require them to do ridiculous amounts of work for each resysopping. I'm adding the "serious concerns" bit to our original "evading scrutiny" phrasing in order to catch also the cases where the admin has not evaded scrutiny, but there has in fact been scrutiny, and it has revealed, well, serious concerns. I also believe we should focus on conduct and previous criticisms, rather than on sanctions; we can't be bound by the reluctance of some older arbcoms to sanction abusive admins at all.

Why do I suggest attention be paid only to concerns revealed via RFC and RFAR? For practical reasons: I don't see it as reasonable to expect the crats to dig out every blessed ANI thread before they resysop people.

Crat discretion must of course be actively exercised to interpret the word "serious"—quite a large field in itself. Being RFC'd or RFAR'd certainly isn't enough in itself to make a resysop problematic: anybody can request comments or arbitration, and, well, frankly, many such requests are frivolous. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC). (P.S. I'm leaving Option 13 aside, as I don't understand it, and it doesn't seem to concern the kind of problems I'm addressing.)


 * I'm not sure what the exact wording should be, but I agree with the broad principle that it will be necessary to combine the wordings from several of the other options. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tryptofish. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that we will have to combine several of the above options, as several are valid, but are limited. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As others said, not sure about the precise wording. In general, this is where we should be relying on bureaucrat discretion. It feels like we're trying to fix what isn't broken. - jc37 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)*
 * See my comments above for more, but I feel this leaves too much in the hands of crats. Consensus would determine desysopping from an RfC (or lack of desysopping), so I don't think an admin that leaves before an impending RfC over his tools should have that RfC determined by a crat before any discussion. gwickwire  talk edits 02:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not rely on bureaucrats discretion.  Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Needs to be clearer and in context with the rest of the policy.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda. Concur with several others here, starting with Tryptofish at the top of this one. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No (see options 2 and 3, please) - Nabla (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 15
In the section:

After removal due to inactivity
If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's 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.

change without further discussion to after 24 hours

Discussion
This is true that if there is no discussion, after 24 hours, they can be resysoped but it is confusing, as it tends to indicate "immediately", which was the previous standard. No other changes are needed. Apteva (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the only time we should rely on bureaucrats' discretion on whether the account is compromised. No need for the 24 hours.   Ebe  123  → report 18:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. 24 hours is an awfully short period, but there needs to be some basic chance to evaluate whether or not they really did leave "in good standing", and if they maintain basic operative competence and good judgment. There are quite a few problems with administrators who, after having returned from a long period of absence or who simply were sysopped a long time ago, are unfamiliar with new norms (such as the rapidly-developing debate about civility) that have developed and which have made adminship a more exclusive and reputable club. Shrigley (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Anyone that out of step with the current, live Wikipedia cannot possibly do a proper job as an admin, and may even find being a plain ol' editor again has a learning curve. They will need at least a 1-3 months of refamiliarization. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. And could be a couple days longer. If you're out for an year you surely do not need the bit in a hurry, nor does WP. - Nabla (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, per Nabla. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think for each year of complete inactivity (of the admin account) the former admin should need to actively edit for one month so that they can familiarise themselves with current practices and any changes to policy etc. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 16

 * Users that stop contributing for any extended length of time (a year) forfeit all their previous advanced permissions and if they want them back should return to the En Wikipedia user community to seek re-support for their advanced privileged access to sensitive data and general advanced trust - this position is a reflection of the development of the projects complexity and the growth in oversight of sensitive personally identifying information and deleted WP:BLP violations that any user with Administrative privileges is given full access to - You  really  can  03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of option 16

 * No, but there's the germ of an idea in here. It's the same one in my !vote in Option 15. The problem with Option 16 here is that it was clearly written by someone who categorically distrusts admins,  is pissed off about something, and trying to make a long-winded, rambling point. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:SMcCandlish - I don't as you claim, "categorically distrust admins" and I can provide diffs to support my statement, I support admins, we have many great ones and I assist them if I can. You  really  can  08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not as written. Per SMcCandlish there is the potential for the idea behind this to become a good one, but this isn't it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appeciate your feedback - I will continue to record and investigate what users that have not contributed for three years do when they are automatically resyopped by the Crats and will present those facts as and when worthy, regards - You  really  can  08:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is good, especially given the policy changes which have happened over the last year. However I can't support as currently written. Plus 1+2 consensus tells me that the community doesn't think the same. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 17
. . . unless the bureaucrat believes the user is incompetent to serve as an administrator.

Discussion (option 17)

 * Proposed per suggestion at Requests_for_comment/Resysopping_practices.  MBisanz  talk 07:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: this one is already covered above (and No on this one, too, as overbroad; Crats are not monarchs). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, bureaucrat deciding single-handed makes little to no sense (though actually we can not force them to resysop against their will, but that is something else) - Nabla (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No gives too much power to the crat.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 03:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No and Close per WP:SNOW Bouncing Snowball.png Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No and snow close. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No per everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Option 18
. . . in all cases where there is a recent community consensus to do so at Requests for adminship or other venue used for the purposes of discussing candidates for adminship.

Discussion (option 18)

 * This is proposed because some users above believe that other proposals would prevent 'crats sysopping following a successful RFA. While I don't personally believe that is the case, including this option would make things explicit. WP:RFA is often regarded as being broken, so the latter part explicitly allows for discussions at replacement/alternative/experimental venues. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the word "recent" to try and make it clear this does not apply to the original consensus to make the user a sysop in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In all cases where there is a community consensus to do so. Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Per SmokeyJoe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes per SmokeyJoe.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 03:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

General discussion

 * This just might be the worst RFC in the history of Wikipedia. These options are not mutually exclusive, there are a multitude of shadings of the same general concept and no option whatsoever for my view based upon defective wording of the general question: Bureaucrats should not be able to restore detooled Administrators, Administrators wishing to be retooled must pass a new RFA. Wikipedia obviously needs some sort of elected RFC committee to guard us against this sort of straight-out-of-the-backside RFC... Carrite (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies if it could have been organized better. I asked for help in the drafting stage and accepted the input of several people who commented on the talk page. I tried to be inclusive of your concerns in the prompt by inviting others to add options I had not thought of and indicating that non-mutually exclusive options with consensus could be combined by the closing editor to more fully reflect the nuanced nature of opinions on this topic.  MBisanz  talk 21:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is a non-ideal RfC. I'm sure there have been worse.  MBisanz has revealed himself to be less than perfect, but he is still worth his keep.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not my intent to attack the initiator, only the form of this wretched 17-shades-of-blue-no-other-colors RFC. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion that needs to be had. Right now we have trusted crats that we are not allowing them any discretion in these resyoppings at all. I would like to get some feedback from them as to how they feel about that, do they feel a little bit of discretion is needed, would be beneficial in some situations? You  really  can  14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unusual, but I agree with Youreallycan. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Carrite, both the bit in bold and the bit about the backside; the effect of this RfC would be to preclude the statement in bold. A bureaucrat would not be allowed to re-sysop after a successful RfA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RE backside. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment would help by requiring second reading before posting RfC questions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk)
 * While admitting it could have been structured better, such a rule would have been unlikely to apply in this case given at least one other person thought it was ready to go live.  MBisanz  talk 07:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one think there's not really a better way to structure this, and if we can't come up with anything better we should stop 'hating' as the young'uns say nowadays and get on with our edit'n! gwickwire  talk edits 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Different idea + The Rule of Threes
This is more about process, and I think will answer a lot of the questions regarding what Bureaucrats can and can't do without micromanaging them. We have two scenarios, which we have to pick one. We also have the Rules of Three, and an optional addition to the rule of three. The Rule of Three would seldom be invoked, and only when it is a borderline case, which is rare but problematic with the current system. It isn't a straight "vote" to resysop, just guidance for when to pause, and how to overcome. This likely needs rewording to be an RFC, this is just the philosophy of the two positions. Some terms like "serious matter" are intentionally vague as consensus may change regarding what is serious and what isn't. We don't want a laundry list of "if Arb would have...." because we don't really know what Arb would do. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

An admin is considered an admin ONLY when he has the admin bit. After one year of inactivity, the bit is taken away and he is a regular editor. Until 3 years of inactivity has passed, however, he has the option to apply for a "speedy resysop" if he clearly quit in good standing. Bureaucrats should approve for a speedy resysop unless there are reasons to believe the editor left to avoid scrutiny for any action or there is any situation that calls into question the editor's ability to meet community expectations, using the Bureaucrats' best judgement.
 * Scenario 1 (some discretion)

An admin is an admin even if he doesn't have his bit. An admin maintains his admin status until 3 years after inactivity. If he has had the admin bit taken away for inactivity, a Bureaucrat should automatically restore the bit back after the waiting period unless there is clear evidence that he left to avoid scrutiny over a serious matter, or he had committed a serious infraction that went unnoticed.
 * Scenario 2 (less discretion)

If during the initial waiting and discussion period, three Bureaucrats oppose the resysoping of an editor that was removed for inactivity, then this can only be overridden by three Bureaucrats voicing a support for resysoping. If successfully overcome, the bit will be restored after the waiting period AND all relevent discussion between Bureaucrats is complete. This may taken significantly more than 24 hours. If this opposition can not be overcome within 7 days, it should be considered a denial of speedy resysoping, without prejudice for future consideration. Other editors may contribute to the discussion but only Bureaucrat voices count towards the three.
 * Rule of Three (Under either scenario, separate rule)

Bureaucrats may delay or halt the resysop process at their discression, upon the request of three Bureaucrats, and resume upon the request of three Bureaucrats. All time limits are "frozen" during this delay
 * Optional additional Rule of Three

Discussion
"After one year of activity, the bit is taken away". Mmm… you know, that's actually how it works on the Swedish Wikipedia. Works quite well, as far as I hear. But on this page, it was probably a typo, am I right? (Feel free to remove this busybody post if/when you've fixed the typo.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
 * D'oh.   MBisanz pinged me late last night about putting this into text, so I was up way passed my bedtime when creating this.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this. I then fell asleep while watching my review course and moved it over now. Going live soon.  MBisanz  talk 18:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer Scenario 1 over 2, because having or not having "the bit" seems less ambiguous. Given the history of "crat chat" working by consensus, I don't see much need to have rules based on numerical votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - per WP:BURO. Are we seriously proposing the need to implement a filibuster? : ) - jc37 01:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually a solution to a filibuster, and addresses what to do when only one Crat wants to resysop in the face of overwhelming opposition. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 21:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * #1 is my preference to allow a little extra flexibility for scenarios that we can't anticipate. Prefer rule of three, neutral on the freezing although it makes sense to me.  I prefer this overall method over the other items in the RfC as it addresses the status of the editor, (others do not) and doesn't require we keep changing the policy to deal with new problems.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 21:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BURO as well. This is too complicated. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid Instruction Creep
Adminship is "no big deal", on the other hand Bureaucrats are chosen (and we are VERY choosy) for their really good judgement. The Community agreed to desysopping inactive admins based on the understanding that this was administrative and people just had to ask for it back. Given all of that we don't need anything more. Bureaucrats should use common sense, in the knowledge that they (like any other users) are never obligated to do anything they don't think wise. Seriously, we have a far smaller active community than we had a few years ago, yet everywhere I turn people are having discussions about new rules and processes that no-one thought necessary in the past - and mainly to deal either with hypotheticals or with very small occasional problems that we are well able to deal with when they occur. It seems to me this is a destructive culture of mistrust and institutionalism that is both the result and the cause of a project that is increasingly in danger of becoming moribund. We have bureaucrats - they have vast institutional experience - there are no major problems here - let them do what they've always done and use their heads. This RFC is unnecessary and unhelpful.--Scott Mac 20:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Scott Mac 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) - Though I disagree with "unhelpful" (community discussion as a helpful guide to help with future interpretive decisions/choices isn't necessarily a bad thing), I do agree in general that WP:CREEP is bad. - jc37 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is set up, in a leading way, to agree propositional statement (ie rules/guidelines) that is in itself unhelpful and it leads to an assumption that we need to agree such things. I'm not suggesting that it is designed to be unhelpful, but it is.--Scott Mac 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Instruction creep.  There is intention to micromanage the judgement process of Bureaucrats.  Resysop requests are infrequent, and very infrequently controversial, and we have the most stringently chosen for trust and judgement users making the decision. The agreed 24 hour wait is good.  It allows forgotten information to be recalled, by any user.  It allows a single crat to recommend a decline (has this ever happened).  A recommended decline should lead to a crat chat (which is so obvious that it need not be written, surely?).  If the crats have no consensus to act, then they shouldn't.  RfA is always available.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:CREEP is bad.  Discussion is not "unhelpful". The idea that "adminship is no big deal" is a very, very silly myth.  If it were not a big deal, RFA would not need to exist, or would not be contentious if it did exist, there would not be endless debates about community trust and desysoping and resysoping, and really no one would would give a damn at all. This is clearly not the case. Given that admins have broad discretion to block other editors, for quite extended periods of time, and issue topic-bans on disruptive editors, and make or revert changes even to fully protected pages, and see, even restore, deleted content, etc., etc., adminship is obviously an actual big deal, by definition. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) NE Ent 11:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) FrankDev (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrators
We have a long term consensus that if adminship is voluntarily given up not "under a cloud" (to be determined by bureaucrat discretion, which may include previous arbcom or community determinations), then the editor is free to re-request adminship at any time - though "pushing the button" to resysop will wait 24 hours to give bureaucrats (and the community) time to discern and make that determination.

The current exception is in the case of 3 or more continuous years of inactivity, then the editor will need to go through RfA.

In all of this, we rely on bureaucrat discretion. - jc37 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement:


 * This should go without saying, but apparently it needs to be said / re-affirmed. - jc37 01:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this certainly seems to be true. As a sort of reply to the section above this one, as well as here, it seems to me that the editors who started this RfC stated in good faith, in the section, where they felt the existing ambiguities are, although there's certainly a compelling reason to think that the crats can figure things out by consensus. Maybe this RfC will give the crats some useful reading, as a gauge of what the community currently thinks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for life? - no, never- you edit and contribute or you do not need and you should lose your advanced privileges. hi, wow , not see you for years my Internet faceless fantasy amigo - lol -  welcome back, you want your advances rights back after three years of no contributions at all  please ask the community for them back - , that is not my position - my position is much clearer - if you do not contribute on an ongoing basis your advanced permissions should be removed and if you want them back only the community WP:Consensus can and should be able to replace them - Adminship is no big deal -  You  really  can  02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, as to what the status quo is. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  05:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a single edit
"However I am ready to return to activity" .....
 * 400 days, over a year after his granted request for his advanced permissions back - not a single contribution

Restoration of administrative privileges
Dear all,

I have been on a rather long wiki break, and have returned to my administrative privileges having been suspended. I totally understand the reasons given: that administrative access was removed simply due to inactivity. However I am ready to return to activity, and would appreciate my account status being restored.

Many thanks!  ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤   17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - This is just one example - there are more - You  really  can  04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we point out to him that G-Unit is tagged for cleanup? At least he hasn't made any bad blocks.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is helpful to note that this request, made 2.5 years after the admin's last edit,was granted less than three hours later. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that except for the 3 hour delay being extended to 24 hours, the 8 December 2011 resysop would still occur under policy. Further, if he was currently desysopped and were to return tomorrow and ask for resysopping, present policy would permit it after a 24 hour waiting period. His eligibility to request resysopping will not expire until 9 December 2014 (assuming he is, as planned, desysopped for inactivity next week).  MBisanz  talk 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are the current  facts that the community needs to correct and remedy -so as to avoid such continued  false replacements of permissions    -  You  really  can  05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, getting the community to decide how it wants to handle things like that is the entire purpose of this RFC.  MBisanz  talk 05:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - cool - IMO - No responsible user with advanced permissions should give dated and historic contributors advanced permissions at this time - they have no right to them and just don't need them -  ...  let them show a need over time - lets see how this develops - regards -  You  really  can  05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that above, my scenario 1 would allow a little more discretion, including using offwiki information, although without offwiki info showing they can't be trusted, they would still likely be resysoped. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)