Wikipedia talk:Former administrators/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

Could we please have a link or diff to the reason why a former admin must go through AC or RFA? I'd hate for that little "1" superscript to get added to the wrong name by accident. I'll add some as time goes by, but a little help would be nice, and especially on future additions. Thatcher131 11:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the involuntary list, the details are explained at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and we do refer people to that page for the details. The notes for the resigned admins are fine, but should be very brief. Also note that I have tried to link as many Signpost articles as possible to the list at User:NoSeptember/Desysop (by linking the article I am indirectly also linking to any ArbCom case, since they are linked in the articles). NoSeptember 11:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary resignations related to ArbCom cases

I see that how voluntary resignations that may or may not be related to ArbCom cases should be reported on this page is going to be an issue. There is a similar discussion at User talk:NoSeptember/Desysop. I invite people to comment either here or there on the issue. NoSeptember 14:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc glasgow

Doc glasgow resigned in relation to personal matters. He's in good standing as far as anyone is aware. If it's decided by the arbitrators that he has a case to answer, then this will change, but until then nobody knows. The arbitration case was opened primarily to investigate another editor's conduct and, so far, it looks like they're sticking to that brief and to related policy issues. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Riana

I removed Riana from the list because she's got her buttons back. I think she must have desysopped for exams or something. --Tony Sidaway 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

H

I've added H, as he is no longer an administrator. Please see here and here for confirmation. Acalamari 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda and similar cases

Instead of edit warring over how to categorize this, how about providing a link or two that illustrates the circumstances without attempting to pass judgment on it? Would this satisfy everyone? Friday (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion would be good I think given the edit warring. Especially as having asked for the opinion of a steward, Jaranda has now reverted Darkoneko's determination of the matter. WjBscribe 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself, I thought he was another user that wasn't an admin, but what about similar cases. Naconkantari and Lucky 6.9 comes to mind, they resigned after alot of pressure from bad deletions, etc, should they be added as well. Also while I did to the WP:POINT deletion, it was only under alot of pressure (I was very upset on Jimbo comment, and I'm still am, I want to leave in good faith), and I only targeted that article, something that doesn't affect new or unexperienced users, and knowing that it will be restored within a minute. I never abuse my tools other than that case, and some people did worse before (like the deletion of WP:DRV by Doc glasgow over a year ago) and nothing happened. Thanks 131.94.145.132 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think this needs further discussion - perhaps linked to from the crat noticeboard. In many ways this a local matter and should be decided by crats rather than stewards. Also the phrase "controversial circumstances" is ambiguous and seems to mean more than simply its literal meaning. I think the Arbs envisaged that the matter would be determined when someone asked for the tool back (not in the abstract at the time they leave) - this list rather brings forward the decision. As a side note, it doesn't look from the logs as if Doc ever deleted DRV and no one I've asked can remember him doing so, can you point me in the right direction? WjBscribe 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It was over a year ago I remembered someone deleting it, now the old logs are purged I believe though. Thanks 131.94.145.132 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

NM he just redirected it to Tony Sidaway user page back in June of 06, but that's not relevant. 131.94.145.132 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving my own opinion on the matter. The clear cases of controversial circumstances are (1) giving up your tools where there is a pending ArbCom case that was likely to result in desysopping that didn't take place due to the resignation (eg. User:ChrisGriswold), (2) an ArbCom finding that the tools were given up in such circumstances (eg. User:Kelly Martin), (3) an overwhelmingly criticial RfC on user conduct where most commenators supported desysopping, (4) a request by Jimbo that you give up the tools (eg. User:Essjay). It seems to me that in this case "controversial circumstances" does not just mean circumstances that were controversial, but a real likelihood that desysopping would have resulted had the person not resigned. Jaranda lost her temper following an impolitic comment by Jimbo. He deleted his userspace and an article (which was quickly subsequently restored). I myself have trouble believing that ArbCom would desysop someone for that, though censure is certainly warranted. As such, it doesn't seem to me that Jaranda would be required to go through RfA were he to want the tools back. The "controversial" circumstances rule is not designed to be punitive of single mistakes, but to prevent short term resignations allowing responsibility for actions likely to result in desysopping to be evaded. WjBscribe 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the gravamen of the principle as established by ArbCom (which was actually a bit of new policy, although ArbCom doesn't generally create policy, but no one seems to have protested that) is that one isn't allowed to resign adminship to avoid having one's administrator behavior scrutinized in an arbitration case, and then expect to have adminship restored for the asking later on after the arbitration case is over (or was never brought because it wasn't needed now). The principle regarding admins who leave under controversial circumstances (original wording "under a cloud" which I objected to) was created in the so-called Giano case, and the more specific rationale for it was explicated further in the Philwelch decision. So, the real question is whether someone was likely to have sought action against Jaranda for his actions the other day had he not desyopped voluntarily, and if so, would any significant action have been likely to be taken. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, that sort of policy is required by plain old common sense- otherwise pretending to "resign" is a "get out of jail free" card. Friday (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can say that as a bureaucrat, I would not repromote Jaranda without an RFA. --Deskana (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access my account anymore though, so I don't care, but what about Naconkantari and others. 131.94.145.132 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends entirely on the circumstances. The only reason I gave such a quick response as to what I'd do in this situation is because I know exactly what the circumstances were that led to the administrator priviledges being taken away. --Deskana (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for it to be removed because I purged the password, it was never going to be taken away as far as I know. 131.94.145.132 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think it was, until I told Drini that in my opinion I didn't think it was necessary to emergency desysop you. Thus my reluctance. --Deskana (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's up to the crat to decide, all I want is to remove that one from my name as it indicates I got desyropped by ARBCOM which isn't the case. But Jimbo also said that I should not have the tools as I'm immatture (that was the breaking comment that led to me to purge the passord, and hopefully this is my second to last edit on this site, (I'm drafting a farewell message) as I'm very disgraced here and being treated like shit) I wish I haven't found this place in the first place, two years out of my life for nothing. 131.94.145.132 16:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "controversial circumstances" ought to be plain common sense - we don't need a clear definition. However, I don't see why Jaranda's resignation should be treated as controversial; s/he didn't actually abuse the administrator tools, except once, and that was with the summary "to make sure I get desysopped". I disagree slightly with Wjbscribe's interpretation here, as I believe that Jimbo's opinion should have nothing to do with this; indeed, I do not believe that Jimbo should have the right to demand an admin's resignation. Only the community and ArbCom (who are elected by the community) have authority to remove admins. Walton^One 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's correct. Whatever one may think of the merits of Jimbo's role, he maintain ultimate authority (a bit like a constitutional monarch). ArbCom does not have authority because the Community created them, but because Jimbo did so and gave them some of his authority. ArbCom decisions remain appealable to Jimbo and he has the ability to remove/appoint arbitrators or disolve ArbCom altogether. As such, it must be the case that Jimbo can require an administrator to relinquish their tools. Whether this is a good think is of course a matter of debate, but barring a revolution, I don't think we can deny Jimbo's authority. WjBscribe 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the "controversial circumstances" rule established in the Giano case was a liberalization, not a tightening of the rules. When Ta bu shi da yu gave up his admin tools, I don't think there was any mechanism for him to just request them back, and he ran through RFA again to get them back. (Incidentally, he withdrew the first RFA after being a bit silly in the main article space, but was promoted some time later after another RFA was successful.) The opening up for a former admin to request the tools back is a more recent innovation. The first instance I saw of an admin getting it back without RFA was Doc Glasgow after a discussion with Raul654, and that predated the Giano arbitration, a case which I feel merely formalized a previously established practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The trend to resysop on request started in February 2006, a month after Sarge Baldy resigned and turned around and did a reconfirmation RfA (see my list), and it was Raul who took the lead on doing this from the start. NoSeptember 09:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial circumstances

It seems clear that prejudging this issue at the time people leave is proving unhelpful - the flags on the list are not authoritative and are created unnecessary upset. Ultimately the matter of whether or not someone left in controversial circumstances is left to bureaucrat discretion save in a few instances where there is an express finding by ArbCom to that effect. So I've removed the <1> tags from all admins who I don't think ArbCom has found to have given up the tools in such circumstances and made a note that regaining the tools without RfA is a matter of discretion. Please readd it to anyone who should still have such a tag due to an actual finding... Do people agree that this is a sensible change? WjBscribe 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

(moved from Majorly's talk page)

Hey guys, on the general point... I suggest we split footnote one into two footnotes, one for when ArbCom has made a decision and one for when a bureaucrat has made a decision. The more specifically clear the footnotes are, the less disagreement will result. Cheers, NoSeptember 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, doing that won't actually resolve this problem, since we have b'crats on two sides of the issue. I have no objection to splitting the tags; but, since it solves no problem presently, it may just create more confusion. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose a footnote indicating that the status is uncertain due to divergent opinions of bureaucrats is a possibility. The point is, the footnotes should indicate specific facts known to be true, not be so broad as to allow them to reflect each of our personal interpretations of whether they apply or not, and I'm including the personal interpretations of bureaucrats who often disagree on these points as well. The split I mentioned above would certainly clarify the Mercury situation for people reading the page, and lumping the decisions of ArbCom and of individual bureaucrats is not a good idea, a bureaucrat's opinion can be ignored by other bureaucrats. NoSeptember 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the consensus at the recent Mercury BN discussion, I don't think that's true. A b'crat's opinion, by tradition, can't be ignored by other b'crats. But, of course, I'm not sure. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To put this another way, I think the b'crats have self-enforced stare decesis to prevent conflicts among themselves, and the need for a mechanism of appeal. (ArbCom could theoretically be used for this, Carnildo taught us, but is obviously very much a "last resort") Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about opinions about the principles of resysopping and whether it is footnote worthy on this page, not the specific cases which come up (which I doubt a bureaucrat would just overrule another bureaucrat, at least not without discussing it with other bureaucrats first for consensus). Opinion on what constitutes controversial circumstances seems to vary from "you practically need an ArbCom decision" to "a few opposed editors constitutes controversial". It invites forum shopping, once it becomes clear which bureaucrats fall on which side of the spectrum. NoSeptember 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure. I entirely agree that a general explanation, in the header to the section, of philosophical differences is appropriate and wise. I have no idea how to begin writing such a thing, but I also have no doubt that you are fit to the task. I would not support specific reference to this in the footnotes, or varying sets of footnotes, as I think that way leads to chaos. On the other hand, a disclaimer explaining the various ways in which the phrases and marks have been interpreted is something I heartily support. Xoloz (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you see why I made the original suggestion to split the footnote into two. An ArbCom decision makes it clear that there are serious issues with the user. It is understandable why a user who was merely denied resysopping by a bureaucrat would not want to be lumped into the group of ArbCom sanctioned users. It ain't the same thing. One time a resysopping was declined just because the bureaucrat was not familiar with whether the user had any controversy surrounding his desysopping. But no, I'm not saying we need individual footnotes to explain each case or anything. NoSeptember 16:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Deskana, Raul, and I think Rdsmith4 said before that Majorly doesn't need to go though RFA again to get his tools back Secret ^account 21:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps "sabotaging" the voluntary retirement campaign? ;-)

People keep removing this footnote. Why?

5 ^ Some wikipedians feel that admins should retire after a period of at least 1 year, so they can concentrate on other matters. (And also to prevent the impression that admins are the people in charge.) While these people can be resysopped at any time, they are unlikely to do so voluntarily.

I concur that there does not appear to be any evidence for consensus on voluntary retirement; however, I submit that such a consensus cannot ever be shown, if people continuously remove the evidence.

Apparently several people have voluntarily retired under this scheme; however, I would need to sift through page history to find each one. What to do about this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought

An interesting summary: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22414 --8hj3gu7 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots

I think there should be a seperate section/or removed for former adminstrator bots, as they weren't really "adminstrators" per say. I'll do it if there's no objections. Secret ^account 13:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I say go ahead and do it. I've often thought that having the ex-adminbots lumped in with the admins who resigned gives a false number of that section. Acalamari 17:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, and renamed the "Other" section "Resigned" as all of those users resigned the bit. wodup 06:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher131

Why is he on there? 211.30.120.216 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a test account that had admin rights for a while, and is an alternative account of Thatcher. Amalthea 12:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

I'd like to point out that my desysop was temporary, and in the pending arbitration case I resigned my sysop status. Please see arbcom finding. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've moved you to the other list. Thanks for the hard work you put into the project while an admin. WJBscribe (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Former former administrators?

Out of curiosity: is there a list anywhere of admins who lost the admin tools, and subsequently regained them? (Either through RFA or by ArbCom.) I know that has happened a few times, but it's not a common occurrence, so making a list doesn't seem like it would be too difficult. Robofish (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jauerback

I see from his Userpage that User:Jauerback has resigned. Should he be added to the Resigned list? Do ordinary editors such as myself have the right to add to this list? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

He's still a sysop at last check, anyone can add to the resigned list. Secret ^account 21:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Secret. I've added him to the list, following your recent addition. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait, I think I misunderstood your response. I now see that this Resigned list is for former admins that resigned adminship; not admins who have retired from the project while still holding admin tools, as is the case here. I've self-reverted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing former admin

Does anybody know which list User:Crzrussian goes? He got desysopped for some unknown reason. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File under 'R' for resigned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crzrussian&diff=100863317&oldid=100830720 –xeno^talk 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) He was previously on this list, but was removed in October 2007, because he is an admin under a different account. He has apparently experienced harassment from external sites, per a quick Google search. Graham87 14:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks for explaining. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that there is a footnote for this situation, so I've added Crzrussian back to the list. Graham87 09:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Revamp

I have re-vamped the page, changing from the old list style to a table format for better looking organization. I wasn't able to integrate a sort because the main usefulness for it would be date sorting, which is unachievable with that many template transclusions (barring the page be split). I fixed the seemingly random headers that ranged from ==Header== to ===Header=== for no apparent reason and made a readable introduction from all the text that was given throughout the page. Here some things I've introduced, though:

When a former admin was renamed after being desysopped and the contributions are under the new name, I noted it like this:

When a former admin created a new account separate from the listed account, assuming they shared this information, I noted it like this:

When a former admin is listed on the page twice under a different account, that is noted as well:

Lastly, if a former admin was renamed to vanish, I replaced their account name instead with the vanished name, so that admin logs could still be found, and left their former name off:

All of the alternate names are fairly well known cases and/or publicly shared by the former admins themselves. In the cases of the vanished users, it makes more sense to link to an account with logs, rather than an old name with no history (especially since they didn't want their old name anymore). I've also went through and updated where some users are blocked, unblocked and etc. and I made sure to keep all the recent changes over the past couple weeks that have been made so they aren't lost. Comments? Concerns? Love? Trout? Let me know, — Moe ε 06:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! The page is now very long though. It might be a good idea to split the "inactive" section to a new page, but I don't have time to do that now. Graham87 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem splitting it since that would give us the option of date sorting (at least, I think). I'll start working on it. — Moe ε 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Graham87 09:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I would suggest that we split out the "account compromised" cases from the "desysopped" cases, as they are quite different. RickK and Zoe are the examples that come to mind. I believe there were a handful of others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, with the extra space of the condensed former admin template I created, I was thinking of something similar. I'll go through some tests to see what looks best. Regards, — Moe ε 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it now? Regards, — Moe ε 08:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! After hours of work, I think I finally interpreted your comment. We should remove compromised accounts from the desysopped section. Well, at any rate, after I do that you'll be able to sort through reasons for being desysopped as well :p Regards, — Moe ε 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. It's a much more helpful resource now. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• The changes look good! Splitting the inactive admins section to another page was a good idea, too. Overall, the page is much easier to read and is better organized than before; definitely great work! :) Acalamari 09:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TOC position and heading levels

I'd appreciate it if the TOC could be positioned in a standard location in the wiki-markup. This is very important for screen reader users like myself, as noted in the last bullet point in this section. Also, I don't understand why there needs to be a second-level heading titled "Former administrators"; it's semantically empty because it duplicates the page title. Graham87 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the changes that you suggested. Those changes I had made for stylistic purposes anyways. :) Regards, — Moe ε 00:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

User:JHK

JHK was an admin under her previous username (see User:NoSeptember/Early admins (20 Sept 2002)). She left before my arrival here but my recollection of some of the mailing list discussion is that she contacted the developers privately and asked for her contributions to be re-attributed and her adminship to be removed. I've added her for historical completeness. The question of whether someone inactive for over 10 years would still be eligible for adminship without the necessity of an RFA is an interesting one, but likely to be hypothetical as I doubt JHK will return. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed JHK listed on Wikipedia:Former administrators/Inactive and checked the Meta log and they were desysopped as inactive in the mass desysop in July 2011. Apparently she re-requested admin a while back then fell inactive. Went ahead and removed from the resignation section. Regards, — Moe ε 09:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Alabamaboy

I was trying to find out what happened to this user, Alabamaboy. He was the first to point out sockpuppets were editing Robert Clark Young's article and did some diligent work uncovering this 7 years ago. But I went to his user page, it was not just blanked, it was completely erased. There wasn't even a list of his contributions. It's like he didn't never existed.

So, I did a search for him and found he had a successful request for administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy with a great vote of confidence (46/1/1) and so I came to this page to see what happened (resign? inactive? desysoped?) but I can't find even a mention of him here. Even people who have been found guilty of heinous behavior are listed as former admins so I don't understand why this individual's existence has been erased.

I have no desire to "out" him, I just wanted to post a note on his Talk Page and then, when I discovered his profile was erased, it piqued my curiosity and I thought someone here might tell me what happened and if it had anything to do with the Young article. Thanks. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Alabamaboy was just simply renamed. He is now known as SouthernNights, where he is a current administrator, not a former or missing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Maile66

His name appears an list as being de-sysoped as of May 1, 2016. However, he's still a sysop and is still active, so that's obviously in error. As proof, I note no buro board request has been made by him or on his behalf , by arbcom to remove his sysop status, nor is there evidence anywhere in wikipedia that he's voluntarily resigned and he's still active on his account, so I've boldly removed his name. KoshVorlon 10:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding about the purpose of that list. It lists the fifteen people who have most recently been desysopped, regardless of their current user rights; it is not a list of the fifteen most recently desysopped admins who are wstill desysopped. The list below it clearly notes that Maile66 was re-sysopped shortly after being desysopped. I'm therefore reverting your edit ... not the least because it's now extraordinarily misleading (it shows 14 admins rather than 15). . Graham87 11:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon and Graham87: The reason I was on the De-sysoped list was because of a date technicality. An admin granted me adminship on May 1, 2016, a day before the official close of my RFA. So, I was de-sysoped to correct that error, and re-sysoped on May 2, 2016 when my RFA actually closed. — Maile (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

::: Graham87 Maile66 has just stated he not desysopped therefore having him on the de-sysoped list is misleading, please revert .. and by the way, re-read what you wrote It lists the fifteen people who have most recently been desysopped, regardless of their current user rights. Being a sysop is a user right, if he has it, he's not de-sysoped. KoshVorlon 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No..... we are miscommunicating here. I am saying it's correct as is. It lists me as de-sysoped on May 1, 2016, which actually happened. The next column lists me as resysopped on May 2, 2016, which also happened. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 O.K, that was my misunderstanding. I'll strike my comment above. My bad! KoshVorlon 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @KoshVorlon: Thanks, Maile66, even though I had an edit conflict with you (I'm slow at these things, sometimes). I meant exactly what I wrote. Regardless of what happens to Maile66's sysop rights, it will always be true that he was desysopped on 1 May, therefore, at the moment, he is one of the fifteen most recent people to lose his sysop status, which is what the list records. He will drop out of the list of 15 soon, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, which I admit could qualify this to be a rather lame edit war indeed. However, he belongs there at the moment, and as he said, his presence there is not misleading. Graham87 12:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Note on User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has a legitimate alternate account User: Mr. Gustafson and if the edits of his alternate account are taken into account he meets activity requirements. Note he disclosed it in the talk page on 8 July 2007 .But he was desysoped for Inactivity on 1 August 2014 and now crosses 3 Years and hence has been rightly listed as Long term .This was brought up during this discussion in the Bureaucrats noticeboard. But he was not resysoped again nor did ask for his tools back leaving the issue academic.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking a break from this page

Tomorrow I'll be off on a holiday to Canada and the US; on the way I'll attend Wikimania in Montreal. This page will therefore be very far down on my list of priorities, and, unless I have nothing else to do while I'm away, I won't attend to it until after I get back on 25 August. Graham87 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip and thank you for your vigilance here, I'll try not to desysop too many people! — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't Andrevan's desysopping be listed in the for cause section? VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 10:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@VibeScepter: Andrevan "resigned" (see Special:PermaLink/845185962#Andrevan's_resignation) and was declared by ArbCom to have resigned under a cloud, but as this stopped the arbitration proceedings "cause" was never attributed. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, should Andrevan’s current block of 3 months be noted? —Zingarese talk · contribs 22:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/resigned#Blocked section - don't think it is useful to record non-indef blocks here, just busy work to maintain - perhaps we should just change the section title. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Split inactive lists?

Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/inactive has grown so big that it's not rendering the administrators' names near the end of the list. (See Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded.) Any objections to splitting the page into separate "short-term inactive" and "long-term inactive" pages? There are already separate sections for these. 28bytes (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: how about just replacing all the {{dts}}'s with ISO 8601 dates? (That is 240 template calls) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The ones in the "Last edit/log" column? As I look closer I wonder if we need that column at all; it appears to require manual updating (no bot is doing it) and the few I've spot-checked are outdated. Seems like it would be a maintenance nightmare to keep that up-to-date without some automation. 28bytes (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to get User:Graham87's input on this, as he is the primary editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. If that column stays perhaps a bot could be written to update it from time to time, to save folks the trouble of manually updating it. 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise it was getting that big! I'm OK with whatever happens ... the last edit/log column is indeed the most tedious one to fill out and maintain; I would appreciate bot help on it. I'd say it's only necessary if the page is maintained manually, to provide a guide on which admins should be moved to the long-term inactive list (but I haven't even taken into account the five-year rule on admin log actions, which would just complicate the table even further and make it even harder to maintain). Pinging Moe Epsilon, who set this whole thing up. Graham87 06:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys. If you feel like removing it, that's fine of course. However, if you just want me to spend a couple hours updating it as well, that is fine too. I can run through the data and provide an update pretty fast. — Moe Epsilon 09:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: If you do a manual update, could you convert the dates from the {{dts|2018|09|15}} format to 2018-09-15 to fix the template overload while you're at it? 28bytes (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why I can't do that on the inactive administrators page. The next largest page where {{dts}} might be a problem will be the resignations, but that won't be for a long time I reckon. — Moe Epsilon 10:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

All of them besides the inactive admins page have been updated to date. It will be a while before inactive is done but will be done today. — Moe Epsilon 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, 28bytes and Graham87:  Done updating the pages to reflect the current dates/last edits/etc. and fixed table errors where I saw them. The problem on the inactive list continues to persist despite deprecating the {{dts}} format because the {{former admin abbr}} template I created in 2012 transcludes too many templates. Facepalm That will have to be changed to have the names at the end of the list re-appear. — Moe Epsilon 03:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's progress! At least we're getting to the "W"s rather than the "T"s before the parser gives up. Thanks for making that change, and updating the records. {{former admin abbr}} is relatively lean but could probably be tightened up a little more; what do you think? 28bytes (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Replacing with {{admin}} cleared up the error, perhaps former admin can be redone to not use {{toolbar}} inside? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the code in the morning if no one else is able to figure it out. {{former admin}} and {{former admin abbr}} could both use a fix and it definitely looks like it's with the toolbar template. — Moe Epsilon 04:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether a former admin is "active" or "long-term inactive" is not relevant if their desysopping was for cause

@Moe Epsilon and Graham87: I don't follow the rationale for splitting the "for cause" table, since adminship to these users are typically only returnable through a request for adminship or another condition set by the Arbitration Committee. Such a split makes perfect sense on the Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/inactive page, but I found it confusing on the "for cause" page as I assumed, knowing that these former admins can't just get resysopped for the asking when they've been inactive for 1–3 years, that "active" referred to whether or not they were still active as an extended-confirmed non-administor editor. In other words, the "last edit/log" column is just there for informational purposes (not any policy-application purpose), to see who has kept on with regular editing after their desysopping, versus who has left the project.

Because this distinction is irrelevant and confusing on the "for cause" page, I'd like to merge these two tables, making the "last editing/log" show a year only, to make the page easier to keep accurate and up-to-date. There is no good reason for maintaining separate "start" and "end" date columns on this page. Merging these arbitrarily-separated lists will have the benefit of being able to sort all of these by the desysopping date and reason columns. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wbm1058. When I separated the main list when long-term inactivity was created, it seemed to make sense since the wording specifically was adminship to these users are typically only returnable through a request for adminship or another condition set by the Arbitration Committee (emphasis mine). The word 'typically' meant to me that, while highly unusual, there may be a circumstance where it is returned out of the norm. Is it going to happen? Not likely, but there exists a percentage of a chance that it might. That being said, I was thinking the same thing as you, recently, and was considering merging the tables myself soon and don't have a problem doing so. — Moe Epsilon 18:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me; a merged table does make more sense on that page. Graham87 02:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Deceased

It looks like there are several places where admins who had died are listed, under For Cause and also inactive or retired. I have no opinion on where this should be located, just that all 3 admins should be listed in the same place. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Verifiably deceased Wikipedians are listed at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. There is also Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. It isn't really important whether they held the admin bit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• The subpage the user is listed on is categorized by the reason of their desysop. Sometimes, the user dies after they have been desysopped for something prior to them dying, which is why they are still on the for cause, resigned, etc. subpage. The only time they appear on the deceased subpage is because they were an active administrator who died, and their death is the cause of the desysopping. — Moe Epsilon 22:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Graham & Pharaoh of the Wizards,

I don't want to mess with your system here (which I have found so useful over the years) but I was looking at some old cases and found Rodhullandemu who had been desysopped by ArbCom in 2011 but he doesn't appear in For Cause section. I was looking at an unrelated case he was involved in, was surprised to find he was an admin and because I wondered what had happened to him, I fell down the rabbit hole. There is an entire ArbCom case involving his desysop but on his individual mention under "R" admins, you just have a link to the announcement. Thanks for maintaining this valuable resource. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the note and the kind words. I've added a link to the case in the relevant pages ... he's mentioned in the "Blocked or locked" section at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause. Graham87 02:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Liz and Graham.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In the course of doing my admin work, I came across another former administrator I don't see here on the "N" page, Nishkid64. Maybe he/she's here under a different username? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Niskid64 was admin from 2006 (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nishkid64) to 2015 (Special:Redirect/logid/64067329) when they were removed for inactivity. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Liz and Xaosflux: Nice catch! I'd simply forgotten to add Nishkid64 to the alphabetical list. I've added that user there now, copying their entry from Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2015. There's also a search box on the main Wikipedia:Former administrators page that can produce useful results. Graham87 03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

for cause switch-flippers

The way this is done strikes me as a little misleading and/or unnecessary. Taking as an example a case I'm familiar with, Nightscream, it reads "ArbCom decision by Writ Keeper". I realize this page is mainly viewed by us insiders, but to some this would imply that Writ Keeper was an arbitrator who decided to desysop Nightscream. Also, is it really important which 'crat flipped the bit? Seems like it's not in almost all cases. Just a thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah good point ... I've gone and removed that field for most cases. Graham87 07:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/header

So this header page doesn't work anymore because the template it relies on to produce the tabs, {{Start tab}}, only allows 20 tabs/links. Checking out the code there, adding extra links seems like quite a fiddly process. What should be done here .. should we perhaps move to {{Page tabs}}, which allows an unlimited number of links, or maybe something else entirely? I'm personally not fussed because as a screen reader user, it really doesn't matter to me. Pinging @Moe Epsilon:, the creater of the header ... it was broken last year as well but I only just noticed! Graham87 06:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Graham! I'm looking at it and it appears that the header is technically functional but it now has a scrollbar under it because of the length taking it off the page, making it probably not very easy to notice with a screen reader. Once I have time later today hopefully, I'll see about moving it over to another system of tabs that make it easier for you (and probably everyone else). Happy New Years. — Moe Epsilon 14:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, scroll bars don't affect screen readers though. Searching the HTML source of the header page (without editing it) shows that the word "2022" isn't in the template output at all. Graham87 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now that I went to edit the page. Okay, gotcha. I'll take care of it. — Moe Epsilon 16:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken care of it now. I've changed around all the headers of this page to match it as well so there wasn't two systems of tabs. — Moe Epsilon 04:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hey, Graham87,

I stumbled into some old pages and ran into a former admin named Jaranda. It's confusing to follow his/her story, it involves renaming, courtesy vanishing, desysoping, resysoping, and I came here hoping to find a link but I can not find them listed either alphabetically or chronologically (from what I'm able to deduce). Would there ever be extenuating circumstances that prevent a former admin from even being mentioned here? I always had the feeling that this was a place that was truly neutral in its documentation. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: I knew this user well; You might know him as "Secret", under which he's listed. We've tended to try not to reveal old usernames on these pages when they belong to vanished users, especially in cases like this; Tamzin has been quite active in this process and could expound on this further. The story in this case is particularly convoluted and it's way too late at night here for me to try to clarify things. Much more importantly, this user has been in particularly dire health for a while now; hopefully he's going as OK as possible, under the circumstances. I'm sorry if this message sounds a bit weird ... it's hard to know what to say here. Graham87 21:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my philosophy in the changes I've made lately has been, if someone chooses to disassociate from Wikipedia, and sticks by that, we should do them the courtesy of honoring that, especially given that curious readers can still always figure it out with not too much more effort. (I applied a similar logic to not listing the deadname of a trans ex-admin whose old username was a deadname; readers can always click through to the desysop circumstances.) Now, Secret was, unusually, vanished after desysop+indef. I'd missed that in my purge of vanished users' usernames because he's not on the /vanished page (which is for desysopped-upon-vanishing cases), and the only others I thought to check were /inactive and /resigned. Given his health, and given some privacy concerns, I think he should get the same treatment. Again, anyone can find out the story if they're willing to dig around enough. I don't think any former admin's ever gotten the "true vanishing" treatment (pagemoves revdelled, etc.), and even those are easy enough to figure out if you know what to look for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahoerstemeier

User:Ahoerstemeier has died, see de:Benutzer:Ahoerstemeier/Kondolenzliste. NNW (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I have removed his administrative permissions. Useight (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on administrator activity requirements and future of this page

The closure of this RFC means that, from 1 January 2023, an admin will have to make at least 100 edits in five years otherwise they'll be desysopped for inactivity. It has been estimated that this change could initially affect about 197 admins ... quite a number to desysop in one go, let alone the users who would be desysopped later. Therefore, by January next year, to be honest I'd like to hand the maintenance of this page, or at least the recording of inactive former admins, largely or completely to a bot. I for one would be OK with any restructuring of this page required, as long as there was still room for a notes field on desysoppings. Pinging people involved in an earlier discussion on this topic along with users recently active on this page: @MusikAnimal, Moe Epsilon, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and EN-Jungwon:. Thanks! Graham87 07:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the page being automatically updated in some fashion by a bot, if the information can be retained somehow. — Moe Epsilon 03:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I managed to update it ... whew! It took quite a bit of work, but not as much as I feared; table-sorting is a lifesaver. Admins desysopped under the new criterion have their own section in the inactive admins list; not recording the last edit dates in this case makes maintenance much easier and makes more sense here, particularly due to the increase in standards after resysopping. Graham87 08:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A case that doesn't fall into any categories

The account Vianallo was accidentally granted adminship in 2009. I'm thinking the best category to list is /Temporary, since that's where most of the other oddities go, but it doesn't strictly speaking fit there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Likewise with JamesF in 2006 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they'd fit in temporary. They'd also be in the chronological lists, etc. as well. Graham87 15:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added them there. I think I should be done making edits to desysopping/resysopping lists now (and will have significantly less time for Wikipedia for the next few months), but of course a new idea could come to mind at any time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)