Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard - Wikipedia
4 people in discussion
|
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.
This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.
If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.
To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.
 | It is 16:19:50 on October 2, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.
- Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
- Babajobu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Last logged admin action: March 2023
- Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Last logged admin action: September 2023
- Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
- Elf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Last logged admin action: August 2020
Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- i'm sorry to see that designation go, but indeed I haven't done much in recent years. I gave it my all back in the early 2000s became horrifyingly addicted to editing, and finally had to pull away. I will always do small edits and sometimes bigger ones. but, thanks all who continued to contribute in bigger ways. Elf | Talk 03:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Xaosflux: Haven't the rights been removed yet? I was updating the admin newsletter and thought I should remind you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- They are about to be - I usually do these and was travelling! — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Done with thanks for their prior service. — xaosflux Talk 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wugapodes (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)
I continue to have less time to volunteer than I would like. It's gotten to the point where simple requests are piling up and I've lost touch with CENT-level discussions. I'm not using them and it's more of a liability than an asset for the community at this point. Hopefully I will have more capacity for volunteer work in the future and I may request them again at that point. But until then it's best to leave block-delete-protect to those with the time and enthusiasm. I'd like to retain page mover and template editor which were the tools I enjoyed most before +sysop and which I will be most likely to use when poking around. Thanks for the ride, and feel free to say hi if you see my name pop up while I'm on wikibreak. — Wug·a·po·des 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Done Enjoy your Wikibreak, and thanks for all you've done here. ϢereSpielChequers 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Enjoy the break! You are always welcomed back. :) – robertsky (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Crisco 1492 (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)
- I would like to request a re-sysop for myself, with the intent of helping with DYK and alleviating some of the backlog. I have reviewed the criteria for re-sysopping outside of the RFA process, and I believe that I meet them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- They resigned the admin tools in August 2018 (BN request, confirmed here). Last logged admin action was a 1-year self-block in 18 August 2018, previous action was a deletion two days prior. They returned to editing for three edits in October-November 2019, and then in batches from July 2020, so there has been no 2 year period of complete inactivity. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Over five years since administrative tools were last used
might apply here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply- That only applies in inactivity removals, while Crisco resigned their access. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Hmm. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools needs some clarifying then. The way I'm reading it it seems like any of the bullets in that bulleted list are disqualifying for resysop requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request
seems fairly clear that this point only applies in cases of removal for inactivity. I'm not sure policy ever anticipated this particular scenario. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply- It's hard to imagine any other scenario it would be there for. (And IIRC we rejected a modification to remove it in the
same RFC that added the 5 year/100 edit rule. Nope, the one before it.) —Cryptic 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply- The scenario it is there for is for an admin who is procedurally desysopped for inactvity, for example Jayron32 has just been desysopped for inactivity. Their last admin action was September 2023, so they can request the tools back at any point until August 2028 (assuming they don't have any two-year period of complete inactivity). Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It's hard to imagine any other scenario, besides this particular one, that the "In the case of removal due to inactivity" clause would be there for. (Or, equivalently, "if they are removed for inactivity" from the original RFC.) Since you can only get resysopped on request if you lost the bit for inactivity or by resigning. —Cryptic 12:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- There are two scenarios in which you can get the bit back by asking:
- After removal due to inactivity
- After removal due to resignation (this scenario)
- The five-year clause explicitly only applies to the first scenario, and the 2019 RFC you linked did not reach a consensus to apply it to the second one too (in fact there was actually slightly more opposition than support). Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Yes. I was responding to JSS's statement above that policy hadn't ever anticipated this scenario (that is, a former administrator who'd resigned, either over five years ago, or merely while their last logged action was over five years ago), despite it being worded for no other imaginable reason than to anticipate it - both in the current version of policy and in its original proposal. (Maybe we can track down that Beeblebrox guy who made the proposal and ask him.) —Cryptic 12:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- There are two scenarios in which you can get the bit back by asking:
- It's hard to imagine any other scenario, besides this particular one, that the "In the case of removal due to inactivity" clause would be there for. (Or, equivalently, "if they are removed for inactivity" from the original RFC.) Since you can only get resysopped on request if you lost the bit for inactivity or by resigning. —Cryptic 12:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The scenario it is there for is for an admin who is procedurally desysopped for inactvity, for example Jayron32 has just been desysopped for inactivity. Their last admin action was September 2023, so they can request the tools back at any point until August 2028 (assuming they don't have any two-year period of complete inactivity). Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Ah I see. I missed the
In the case of removal due to inactivity
part. My brain didn't expect it to be there or something and paid attention only to the bold. Carry on :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It's hard to imagine any other scenario it would be there for. (And IIRC we rejected a modification to remove it in the
- Hmm. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools needs some clarifying then. The way I'm reading it it seems like any of the bullets in that bulleted list are disqualifying for resysop requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- That only applies in inactivity removals, while Crisco resigned their access. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- They resigned the admin tools in August 2018 (BN request, confirmed here). Last logged admin action was a 1-year self-block in 18 August 2018, previous action was a deletion two days prior. They returned to editing for three edits in October-November 2019, and then in batches from July 2020, so there has been no 2 year period of complete inactivity. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- well this is good news! Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Welcome back Crisco! There's a 24 hour pause on resysops these days,
and nearly 21 hours of that still to run. ButI'm sure DYK will be glad of your return. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply- Thanks both! No worries about the pause; I saw that at WP:RESYSOP as well, and I know that I've left the mop in the closet long enough to gather tons of cobwebs. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @WereSpielChequers: Huh? It's been over 24 hours since the resysop request was posted ... it was posted yesterday. I was expecting to do my regular changes to the former admins pages tonight ... Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Indeed, I seem to have lost a day here. Careless of me. Bit flipped now. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Done
Rights restored. Welcome back! ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply