Wikipedia talk:Administrators

RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for Option 2. Although Cryptic's proposal also received some support, there is no clear consensus for it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• This change has now been implemented. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

---

In Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used for restoration of adminship apply to:

• Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity
• Option 2: All former administrators

Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

At Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Fathoms Below), Tamzin pointed out that the rule allowing automatic resysopping at BN only within five years of the most recent administative action only applies to admins who were desysopped for inactivity, not those who resigned the bit or who lost it for other reasons. The 2022 RFC clarifying when we start counting the 5 years from resulted in a reversion of a 2018 change that applied the 5 year rule to all desysopped editors, despite not discussing that. Indeed my reading of the 2022 comments suggests most commenters anticipated it continuing to apply to all editors. Accordingly, I think we should get explicit consensus for one or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey (five year rule)

• Option 2. I believe that all former admins should be required to pass RFA (or an admin election or any other equivalent process) if it has been more than 5 years since their last admin action, and per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• As the person who started it, it was not my intent to change that part of the policy with that RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Procedurally, I don't think that there has ever been a consensus to apply this to all ex-admins, but I don't have any objection to making that policy now. This should probably be better-advertised, though, as it would affect quite a few former admins like me who remain active and might respect a right of resysop at any point in the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please feel free to advertise this wherever you think is relevant. The goal is to establish what the consensus is now, not what the consensus was at some point previously. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think that the motivation for requiring an administrative action within the past five years isn't affected by whether or not the admin in question requested removal of their privileges in the interim. Thus I agree with modifying the policy so the five-year requirement applies equally, regardless of why administrative privileges were removed. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• It's clear that prior consensus was option 1, but I think changing to option 2 would be logical. OTOH, we could always use more admins and someone requesting resysop after five years may still be a net positive. Perhaps it's better to stick with option 1 and leave the rest to 'crat discretion? Toadspike [Talk] 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: not convinced there's a strong enough reason to treat these two groups differently. (It's always seemed kind of crazy to me that someone who resigned twenty years ago is still technically eligible for resysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• It makes little sense to treat the two groups of ex-admins differently, especially with the 100/5 rule. An admin who goes to WP:BN and resigns the day before they would be desysopped is doing the honourable thing, but that isn't really a reason to treat them better (indefinitely) than the ex-admin who was on vacation the day before the desysop. Agree with Tamzin that this should probably be advertised better before we lock out some good people, though. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Support Cryptic's version, superior to Option 2 and to the status quo. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• My thought would be that we should treat someone who resigned the bit the same as we'd treat someone with the same profile who hadn't resigned the bit. So if they would have been desysopped at some point anyway, then apply the rules for a resysop. But on the other hand, if that editor actually wouldn't ever have been desysopped anyway but for their decision to resign, I'm hesitant to treat them more harshly than someone who simply kept the bit and didn't use it. It's good for the security of the project if editors who don't need adminship for a period of time give it up on a technical level and I don't think we should change the rules to deincentivise that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• I feel mixed on this. On the one hand, should an admin who's active within the community and gives up their tools be allowed to pick them back up at any time? I somewhat feel like, yes, but I also recognize that going 5 years without the tools and then picking them back up can be something that people would not be a fan of. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Thanks for the ping. No reason to treat both groups differently. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - it just makes sense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. We should apply the same standard that is already in place for former admins who have no edits in the past two years: "regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to request reinstatement through the WP:RFA process". --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'm going to go against the grain and make things gratuitously complicated. Leave the existing 5-year rule as-is for admins dropped for inactivity; measure it from the date of resignation for the rest. (Equivalently, treat resignation as an admin action.) This disincentivizes making a pro-forma deletion the day you resign, treats admins who usually use tools that don't leave logs (like viewdeleted or editing protected or MediaWiki: pages) the same as those who use ones that do, and matches up with the total inactivity rules. —Cryptic 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  I actually like this suggestion best so far.Basically we pretend that inactive admins resigned when they stopped using the tools. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 per above. Only option that makes sense -Fastily 10:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• 2 and to be clear, this should be evaluated at the time of the request. This was always a messy timing issue that has caused contention. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: All former administrators. I'm on a see-saw regarding adding a clause that it should count from resignation, but it does make cleaner and clearer sense to make it a strict rule that it's five years since last tool use. SilkTork (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Cryptic's version, with Option 2 as a second choice. If you haven't been an admin for that long, you should probably make sure you still have community support. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. This is a no-brainer for me - as I see if, it makes no difference on the voluntary nature of your desysop, if you haven't used the tools for 5 years, you cannot be considered up to date with what's going on Wikipedia and any culture shifts in that time period. Running through RfA should be required. Worm^TT(talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Cryptic's idea, either is equally fine with me. In the olden days, like 2010-2015ish, I'm pretty sure it worked similarly to option 2 anyway (except it was like 2 or 3 years? Am I misremembering?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  You might be thinking of the total inactivity rule, which says anyone without any edits for two years (and was previously zero edits over three years). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 as reducing WP:CREEP while making more sense. Fewer "if"s to keep track of. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agreed with Toadspike that the prior consensus probably was Option 1, but as HouseBlaster notes, this minimizes WP:CREEP by eliminating an exception to the rule with a common-sense judgement that those who voluntarily desysop and go ≥5yrs without admin activity can no longer stake an automatic claim to continued community support ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Cryptic's rule or Option 2 both fine. Per Extraordinary Writ and Cryptic. Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - a lot has changed on enwiki in 5 years and so have policies, so I think it would be wise to ensure that someone regaining the tools is up to date on all of them and not just default-grandfathered in because they were able to wield them many years ago. Raladic (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Should apply equally to all ex-admins. Five years is a long time for any admin, and also applying it equally to every ex-admin would reduce bureacratic hassel (e.g. resigning under dubious conditions?).--Takipoint123 (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Cryptic's rule I agree that we need to have some measure of consistency, and I especially like Crpytic's idea of effectively counting voluntary resignation in itself as an admin action. Jackattack1597 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (five year rule)

• Notifying those who participated in the 2022 RFC: @Primefac, Barkeep49, Floquenbeam, Tamzin, Just Step Sideways, Isaacl, SilkTork, UninvitedCompany, Coretheapple, Worm That Turned, Kusma, Bilorv, and Jc37: Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• A variant of this failed to pass at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)#Statement 5 by Pharaoh of the Wizards. —Cryptic 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• I tend to think that if you haven't used the tools in five years, you ought to go through either RFA or the election rather than just having it handed back. I'd imagine most former admins who resigned while not under a cloud could pass either pretty easily. Realistically, such users already have not been an admin for five years. Or... just thought of this, we now have Re-RFA as a result of recall, where standards are a little more lax for passing, that might be the way to go. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with both thoughts. But if they could easily pass, wouldn't it be better to save community time and just resysop them directly? Toadspike [Talk] 06:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  But what about the ones who would not pass? Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Discussion added to WP:CD for visibility as it involves a policy change. cyberdog958^Talk 07:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I'll cop to this ambiguity being basically my fault as I was the one who proposed this rule in the first place. At the time it was exceedingly difficult to make any changes to the admin activity policy and I believe I phrased it this way out of caution, deliberately aiming as low as possible. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• I resigned as an administrator 10 years ago because I was switching careers and moved back to NYC, so I was going through an inordinate amount of stress. I would like to be able to get the extra tools if needed. Bearian (talk)
• If this change is going to be made, is it going to be retroactive, or only apply to five years of inactivity going forward? At the very least, people like Bearian should be notified that a potential change is going to affect their status. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's probably worth discussion as a separate question, with notifications to those affected (former admins who resigned, whose last logged action was ~four or more years ago, and who have edited within the last two years) and all those who have commented above. It's worth noting though that previous changes to the activity policy have implicitly applied retroactively without (as far as I spotted) notifications to those affected (2022, 2019, 2018, 2012). Thryduulf (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Notifications were sent out after the 2012 change—see here. I don't think they've been used recently, though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  As we mature as a site, we need to be more intentional about the growing body of people affected by changes: If proposed changes are going to be retroactive--which is clearly the community's right--then the affected persons need to be notified and invited to participate or exercise their current privileges, if desired, before any modification is effective. This is a bit of a sore subject for me, as I was disenfranchised from Arbcom elections a few years back by a change in activity calculations I was unaware of until it had become effective. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Grandfathering would be almost pointless, as it would mean anyone with 5+ years of non-adminship would effectively get another five years before they were ineligible. I would be perfectly fine with giving a delayed implementation and/or an MMS sent out to the affected former admins, but not starting the clock fresh. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  What seems to have happened in 2012 was that those affected were sent a mass message just under a month before the change was implemented. Assuming this RFC is closed in early December, then implementing the change on 1 February 2025 would give people plenty of time to request the tools back if they are still engaged with the project. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about wheel

Wikipedia:Unblocking links here when it says "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable when it would constitute wheel warring" but this page states "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a decision by consensus." It's unclear to me if WHEELing would involve an initial unblock without consensus/consulting the original blocking admin or if this only becomes relevant if a third admin comes by and reverses the unblock. Because if it's the latter meaning, the link here from unblocking doesn't really make sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first block and the first unblock are allowed. Then anything after that, without a corresponding discussion to get consensus, is wheel warring. That first unblock can sometimes be unpopular and go against the guidance of checking with the blocking admin, but I think it's allowed under policy and is not wheel warring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If A blocks, B unblocks, C reblocks, and D reunblocks, all without discussion, then C and D are wheel warring as they reinstated a previous administrative action without clear discussion to establish a consensus view. The first reversal is allowed by the community as it desires quick reversals of problematic actions, but the reversal should be followed by discussion. In theory, if the community enacted an editing restriction enforced by a block until a given condition was met (for simplicity, let's say a partial block), and A unblocked, B reblocked, and C reunblocked, without discussion, then C would be wheel warring. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, if A's block happened in 2018 while B, C, and D all acted this week, I'd say only D is wheel warring even if A's original block was done without a prior discussion. At some point (and I'm not going to try to define when exactly that point is) the original block becomes a status quo and B's unblock can be seen as a fresh action rather than a reversal of the prior action. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the main question in such a case is whether the third/etc. action is based on new information or not.

• A blocks. 3 years later, B says "that was a bad block" and unblocks. C reblocks. C has wheel-warred; B may or may not have violated WP:RAAA.
• A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. C disagrees with the acceptance and reblocks. D unblocks. This would be a serious RAAA violation by C, but not a wheel war, because the first mover for the current set of information is B. D, however, has wheel-warred.
• A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. The user then vandalizes and C blocks them. This violates neither WHEEL nor RAAA. D then unblocks, violating RAAA but not WHEEL. E then reblocks. It's E who's violated WHEEL, because they're the third mover for the current set of information.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The best example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, which was a straight block / unblock / reblock case, where the final admin to reblock was desysopped for cause. (Oh, it also stemmed from Malleus Fatuorum Eric Corbett calling admins the "c" word, which used to be a good way to reduce the world supply of popcorn....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)