Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

TheresNoTime (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Please also remove my IA rights. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's been done for you TheresNoTime. If there are rights you want activated please let us know. SilkTork (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To head off more comments such as this, clouds are not determined until the editor asks for restoration of their perms. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't me this time, but the previous such comment was from me at Pratyeka's resignation. I understand the objection voiced in Special:Diff/1119410844, but this is not about determining whether there was a cloud, and it's not an attempt to start a discussion. At least it wasn't from my side. This is about the not-extremely-unreasonable fear that the lack of such a note could lead to it being overlooked later. I don't watch this noticeboard, so when I make such a comment, I do so because I likely won't be present to voice the concern when it's time to voice it. That's all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a difference between giving the current status of things (as you did previously) and saying "this is a cloud situation" (incidentally, as you also did previously). WTT below has given the current status of things, which will give enough information for any future restoration request. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, yes, that was non-ideal. I'll use more neutral wording when linking to current possibly relevant discussions in case I have similar concerns in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Although cloud is not determined now, noting for the record that this was the state of the case at the time of desysop. The committee had unanimously opposed removal of admin tools Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just for the archives, mostly-related functionary resignation here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom is reviewing a motion related to the timing of their votes and the resignation here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block/Proposed decision#Actions by parties to a proceeding. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Case closed, motion adopted - ArbCom waives their rule If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures for TNT in this case. This doesn't specifically waive any WP:ADMIN considerations - but may help any guide any possible reinstatement discussions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• In general I think most ‘crats would welcome a link to relevant contemporaneous discussions (e.g. active or very recent ArbCom cases) with a neutrally worded comment. Arguments about whether there is a cloud or not are less welcome at this point in time for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it may have the appearance of kicking someone while they’re down. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Last update was circa 2011: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Actions_by_parties_to_a_proceeding. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• To my recollection, when an admin's tools are removed it is customary to thank them for their service. It seems a glaring omission that TheresNoTime was not thanked for the years of faithful service they rendered, an omission I'd like now to correct. TNT, thank you for serving Wikipedia as an administrator, you have left an indelible positive mark and you will be sorely missed as both an admin and a functionary. I pray that you will remain as an editor. Sincerely. --John Cline (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  After reading my comment, I feel it conveyed the wrong tone. I apologize to anyone who may have gleened a similar sense and have copyedited the comment to better convey my intent. Best regards to all.--John Cline (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion on waiting periods

Note that this discussion was split from #Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

• I think bureaucrats should consider implementing the 1-day waiting period for resignation self-requests that Stewards implemented a while back so we can allow for cooler heads to prevail in situations like these. :( Legoktm (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I generally third this (prob implies policy change, etc.), but given that nearly every time there's a request with even a slim chance of weather we do this same dance for a dozen comments or so, I don't foresee a world where a waiting period helps that aspect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I considered that, but decided our current protocol serves the user and Wikipedia better. If someone is here requesting tools to be removed, they may be in an emotional/unhappy/angry/depressed state, and may, under provocation, do something they regret with the tools. I feel we should honour the request as soon as we see it. If there is no cloud, the user can gain the tools back on request. Granted, they have to wait 48 24 hours for the tools back, but better to have that wait than to regret having deleted something or blocked someone in anger. Some people may feel the burden of the responsibilities of the tools at sensitive times. I would personally regard acting promptly to remove tools on request was something more vital for mental health and security reasons than, say, closing an RfA on time. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Legoktm the major difference is if you go to SRP and resign, it is a one-way path; regaining access via SRP requires a new showing of community support. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  That waiting period was explicitly not wished for, and then also not taken. [1] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've ... shall we say "requested desysopping in less than perfect circumstances" (i.e. many would say "ragequit") a couple of times, and in my own case, not doing it right away would have increased my anger and stress. I asked TNT to wait a little, but once they make the decision and request a desysop, I think the respectful thing to do is honor their wishes right away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've always supported the 24 hour period to desysop for volunteer situations, it just isn't an issue that often. Require a request, then a 2nd request at least 24 hours later, this is how I would do it, with it automatically resulting in a voluntary desysop after 72 hours, say. This way if they don't come back, they aren't in limbo. This may seem like a burden, but it really isn't. It's not like you must use your bits during that period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I disagree there's an issue here to be solved. Whilst I'm not happy when someone wants to give up the tools - it's their right to do so. It's not a one way street - if someone did ask for their bit to be removed, if they did want it back then under our current rules they would get it back unless it was under a cloud. This way prevents potential disruption. I can see someone who was adamant they didn't want the tools anymore intentionally using them poorly to expedite the issue. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• ^This. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I had pondered for a while if this was a good idea. But I think Amory's point above should not be lost: a 24 hour waiting period could, not infrequently, turn into 24 hours of attention towards a person who probably doesn't want it at that moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• I also do not support this idea. Cloudiness is a discussion for when they ask for the tools back. If it s a trulyt voluntary desysop, it should just be actioned with no further fuss or ...(sorry) bureaucratic red tape. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox I think the positive case for a 24 hour wait is as a cooldown for someone who is rage quitting not about CLOUD. Obviously CLOUD discussions are part of what I reference in my comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Immediate desysop on request and then a 24 hour wait for resysop both felt right for me last time I laid down my tools. Please keep as is. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• In my experience, people generally do not make these decisions lightly, and an additional wait time will not bring any particular relief, and may generate additional frustration. Also, I don’t think this is subject to discretion, so it would need to be implemented by RfC. –xeno^talk 20:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Acting on a request immediately isn't mandatory, so bureaucrats are free to use their discretion on whether or not they want to check in with the requestor first before complying with the request. I think leaving the process to bureaucrats' discretion may be the best way to adapt to each specific circumstance. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  isaacl: it’s true bureaucrats have a pocket veto in WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, however there would be no way for a single bureaucrat to prevent all others from acting on a request without a community-approved process for delaying. –xeno^talk 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  xeno I think the reverse is more likely - that most/all other crats would want to sit and a single crat does what is asked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  I assume if one bureaucrat posts a response saying they're checking in with the requestor, the others will defer and not choose to short-circuit the discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  There are exceptions. IIRC I briefly rage-quit sometime around 2006; Raul654 (talk · contribs), bless him, sat on my admin resignation request for a little while until I'd calmed down. It wouldn't have been under a cloud or anything like that, but I reflect on that small act of kindness and understanding from time to time. I wouldn't want to see a bureaucrat's hands bound in either direction. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think any mandated waiting period is necessary. Leave us the discretion. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
• I think 'crats having the discretion to implement immediately or not seems to be working just fine, and seems to be what both crats and those who have requested desysop in the past want, so I see no benefits to changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (Euryalus)

Euryalus (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hi all, last January I handed in the admin tools for Euryalus (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) to focus on studying. My last exam was today, and so am re-requesting the mop to return to various janitor tasks. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal request: Special:Permalink/1064590698. I see no issues, standard hold is in place. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, seems fine. Welcome back Euryalus. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Respected user. No concerns. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello young Euryalus! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC).

Happy to endorse this user's return. Hope the exams went well. Glad to see your datestamp! BusterD (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And so enacted, Welcome back! Worm^TT(talk) 07:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Desysop request (RedWordSmith)

RedWordSmith (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I am requesting that admin rights are removed from my account, as regrettably I will not have an appropriate amount of time to dedicate to Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. - RedWordSmith (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's been done for you. SilkTork (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to RedWordSmith for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Transferring my admin rights

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

---

Nandesuka (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Nandesuka2 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello Bureaucrats!

I am Nandesuka and I no longer have control over my old admin account due to being locked out of it by 2FA since March of this year. My 2FA device malfunctioned and I had lost my scratch codes long before that. Wikipedia's implementation of 2FA is extremely unfriendly for non technical users like me, with no "customer support" so to speak.

Anyway I was busy IRL from early 2020 till 3 months ago. I had tried to regain my old account a few months ago but it was not possible. I have been editing anonymously meanwhile. Since it looks like there is no hope of getting my old account, I decided to create this one. I was wondering if it is possible to get my admin rights assigned to this account since I have a committed identity?

I remember back in the day 'crats were okay with transferring adminship between accounts. I clearly remember Bishonen switching her admin hat over to Bishzilla. I looked in the archives here in BN and I see ELSchissel was in the same position as me, though they didn't want to get their account back. Will the 'crats please arrange to have my admin rights transferred to this account, since I am still eligible for resysop? Nandesuka2 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd think you would need to prove that you're the same person as the one who controls the original account, presumably by revealing the secret phrase for your SHA-512 committed identity to a 'crat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Warning: you can never "unshare" the SHA-512 plaintext, so doing so with WMF T&S would be the more advisable first step. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And don't just email it to them, email them explaining your situation and that you have a sha-512 published hash, they may assign someone specific to you. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Was extremely gracious of the little crat User:Rdsmith4 move admin bit from Bishonen to Bishzilla (clearly the better admin), but apparently caught some flak for it. Good luck, little Nandesuka2. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC).

 Not done you can start by contacting WMF Trust and Safety (email on that page) and seeing if they will help you with 2FA recovery. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Today's account CU-blocked. Izno (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2022 (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.