Wikipedia talk:Administrators

External videos
Wheel warring

I want to close this account for good, removing all revision histories, can you please do that?

I tried my damn best to be a better person, and reported on someone who was banned unfairly in 2012. Instead of getting help I was forced to either do what I'm told or get out, and I want to help Wikipedia, but fuck it I'm not even reading revision histories if I am gonna be villainized for the smallest mistakes. So please do it I know it takes a long time without bots, but I want nothing to do with this website if I can't even ask civil qusetions without getting heat for it. And I WILL make a video talking about the unfair ban as it was unjust, it happened over a decade ago which makes it worse. As for me, don't ban me just close this account for good, I don't know how or have the power to do so. But I'm fed up with how I can't even return nicely without rudely being demanded to leave. One more thing, look for someone good at English to translate the Bogi Ágústsson I'm not doing it anymore if I can't even ask questions without getting into trouble. Also before it's too late get this site some ads, lack of ads is why it's failing financially.

Also if I'm required to end the post with a question, how can I trust a wiki where you are warned even when you try to return civilly? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our software currently does not permit deletion of accounts. However, it does not hurt anything to leave accounts unused; you may simply stop using the account.

If you wish to remove your email address from your account, you can unset it at Special:ChangeEmail. If you wish to remove your userpage, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the page (including the brackets), and one of our administrators will delete the page. If you wish to rename your account, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing_username. Additionally, you might qualify for a VANISH.

If there is personal information on another page that you wish to be removed, please provide us with the specific details so that we may remove it as policy permits.

Otherwise, all you have to do is stop logging into the account. I hope this answers your question, and I am sorry to hear that you have decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia. If you wish to return, you may simply begin using the account again.

If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know. Best regards, and thank you for using Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that you are not "in trouble", nor do I see any indication that you were "asked to leave" or are being threatened with a ban. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to link to the discussion where you were told these things and we can take a closer look. Your post has some unusual ideas in it such as Also if I'm required to end the post with a question. There's no policy like this so i wonder if you've been given bad advice by someone. Also it is a bit odd to see drama over such an old ban. So much can change in 10 years. A wel-formed unblock request by the blocked or banned editor may be successful. Oh and the foundation has plenty of money. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: It's wrt this conversation. While they were clearly not threatened with a block or a ban, I guess they misread Bbb23's comment that BTMF was abusing a template and being obnoxious as being a step towards a block. Their comment here about having to answer with a question: they received another template ({{Help me-nq}}) which tells them You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done. They seem to be in a passion over something, and it's currently unclear why. ——Serial Number 54129 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have made series of WP:Bold changes to this policy page, aiming to clarify confusing sentences, cull repeated guidance, and increase concision, all while preserving guidance determined by community consensus. [1][2] Clearly, I have failed, and as @Andrybak have disagreed with the edits, I wanted to start a discussion. Andrybak has given helpful feedback: from the edit summary, I realized I have deleted a policy shortcut template, which was not intended. Andrybak pointed out I changed some wording that was determined via consensus. While I believe to have preserved the intended meaning in such sentences, I should have made a effort to discuss beforehand.

However, I believe most of my other copyedits were improvements, and I would like others to identify problematic aspects, so that copyedits identified to be improvements can remain intact. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Involved" exception when dealing with threats

Based on what I see at WP:AN#More admin misconduct, I suggest adding more explicit language to the vandalism and "purely administrative" areas concerning involvement to the effect that any administrator may take appropriate measures to deal with any editor who makes threats against them or anyone else. I'm sure somebody can argue how "threats" may be parsed, but we can certainly agree on violence, stalking, or doxxing as obvious candidates. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One simple addition would be to add "or threats" so it reads "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism or threats)...". However, lists of examples tend to expand with time and end up being read as definitive statements. In the recent incident linked in the OP, I doubt that anyone would have reacted differently if "or threats" were present—the people concerned have no idea and would have made the same fuss regardless of what this page said. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The things Drmies was having to deal with were 100% covered by the "straightforward cases" exception, no questions asked. I agree with Johnuniq that a wording change wouldn't have made a difference in this situation (or in any others I can envision). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there was some sentiment for a leisurely consultative approach, or for a put-up-with-it-or-resign approach, citing the policy, an interpretation with which I profoundly disagree. But I'm sensitive to instruction creep too, which is equally subject to philosophical gaming. I find the parlor game of "is this admin involved because they 'disagree' " tiresome and time-wasting, and I view the language of the policy as a bit equivocal. I may be influenced by spending the past couple of days writing contracts, which causes anyone to second-guess every word they write. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Two-year inactivity rule phrasing

Admins removed for inactivity have to run a new RfA if they want to be resysopped after a two-year period of inactivity. For admins removed under the recent 5-year/100-edit inactivity requirement, does that mean two years after the removal of admin tools (as WP:ADMIN#Restoration of admin tools suggests), or does it mean two years from the last edit or log action (as WP:RESYSOP suggests)? It doesn't really matter which answer we choose, but it's important to resolve the ambiguity one way or another so there are no issues when it inevitably comes up at WP:BN. Probably the easiest solution would be to change the sentence here beginning In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity... to "In the case of an administrator desysopped due to inactivity, the two-year clock starts from the last edit or log action prior to the desysop" or something like that. (This came up previously here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this RfC getting at what you wanted (which wasn't formally closed only because consensus was clear so it didn't feel like a formal close was necessary)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That involved a different inactivity rule (five-years-from-last-tool-use), but you're right that it's basically the same question. I think the best way to follow the logic of that RfC is to make the change I suggested above, which hopefully won't be too controversial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wearing my full formal wikilawyer hat, A) WP:ADMIN is policy and WP:CRAT, of which WP:RESYSOP is part, is a summary of policy, so where they conflict it has to be RESYSOP that's incorrect; and B) the shorter 1-year period for no-edits only applies if "an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity" - that is, the one year total inactivity rule, not the 5-year/100-edit one.

Wearing my reasonable person hat, B is bonkers, and, for that matter, so is all the text after the boldface "Over two years with no edits". The specific inactivity rule shouldn't matter; and if you accept that, then I can't for the life of me think of a situation where you can get desysopped without it being either involuntary (and thus ineligible), for inactivity, or making an edit to request it. And I doubt I'd be the only person to look far askance at a resysop request saying the two-year-zero-edits rule should start from the desysop timestamp instead of the actual last edit solely because you asked to resign on Discord or IRC or whatever instead of even bothering to log on and ask at WP:BN like a normal person. Just look for a two-year period with zero edits - simple rule, easy to check, makes sense.

Not that any of that, or the rfc about the 5-year-no-logged-actions rule, deal cleanly with the 5-year/100-edit inactivity rule - you can be inside the limit of either or both of the "Lengthy inactivity" subitems while still qualifying to be desysopped for having under a hundred edits. But that's one of the things that the "bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced" rule is for. —Cryptic 01:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If people are fine with replacing the bullet point with "a new RfA is required if the admin was totally inactive during any two-year period ending after the desysop" (or some more elegant wording), I agree that'd be even better. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)