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.
Should the policy for determination of suitability for resysopping be changed? 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
. . . unless the administrator's permissions were removed by the Arbitration Committee.
. . . unless the administrator resigned during a user conduct RFC or a request for arbitration.
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)
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has the reasonable possibility of leading to desysopping.
These proposals got snowed out in no time.— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Option 5The 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. . . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid any kind of scrutiny or discussion of their conduct. Discussion
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.
Option 6The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes they would have successfully passed RFA at the time they went inactive or resigned. Discussion
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.
Option 7The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes they would successfully pass RFA at the time they are requesting resysopping. DiscussionIn 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)
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.
Option 8The 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. . . . 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 ∇. 21:04, 29 December 2012 (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.
Option 9The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to be and will serve as an active administrator. Discussion
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.
Option 10The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes in his own judgment that the user should be an administrator. Discussion
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.
Option 11The 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. . . . 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
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.
Option 12The 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. . . . 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
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.
|
. . . if the user's rights were removed as the result of a mistake.
. . . 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.
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 | 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.)
In the section:
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
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)
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.
. . . unless the bureaucrat believes the user is incompetent to serve as an administrator.
. . . in all cases where there is a recent community consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or other venue used for the purposes of discussing candidates for adminship.
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¢ © 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.
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.
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.
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
misc |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"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 | talk 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
|
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:
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)
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:
"However I am ready to return to activity" .....
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)
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.
Should the policy for determination of suitability for resysopping be changed? 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
. . . unless the administrator's permissions were removed by the Arbitration Committee.
. . . unless the administrator resigned during a user conduct RFC or a request for arbitration.
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)
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has a substantial likelihood of leading to desysopping.
. . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid scrutiny of a nature which has the reasonable possibility of leading to desysopping.
These proposals got snowed out in no time.— cyberpower Offline Happy 2013 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Option 5The 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. . . . unless it appears the administrator resigned or became inactive to avoid any kind of scrutiny or discussion of their conduct. Discussion
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.
Option 6The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes they would have successfully passed RFA at the time they went inactive or resigned. Discussion
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.
Option 7The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes they would successfully pass RFA at the time they are requesting resysopping. DiscussionIn 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)
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.
Option 8The 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. . . . 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 ∇. 21:04, 29 December 2012 (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.
Option 9The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes the user is currently competent to be and will serve as an active administrator. Discussion
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.
Option 10The 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. . . . if the bureaucrat believes in his own judgment that the user should be an administrator. Discussion
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.
Option 11The 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. . . . 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
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.
Option 12The 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. . . . 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
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.
|
. . . if the user's rights were removed as the result of a mistake.
. . . 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.
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 | 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.)
In the section:
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
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)
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.
. . . unless the bureaucrat believes the user is incompetent to serve as an administrator.
. . . in all cases where there is a recent community consensus to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or other venue used for the purposes of discussing candidates for adminship.
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¢ © 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.
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.
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.
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
misc |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"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 | talk 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
|
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:
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)
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:
"However I am ready to return to activity" .....
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)