Contents

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Click here to add a new section

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 16:04:30onJuly 9, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

I'm ready to return to adminship. Please could you reinstate? Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues after the 24 hour hold. Primefac (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Just sysophood, or intadmin as well? I'd support you picking it up as well, although per WP:INTADMIN and your resignation of both, all that's needed is you to request it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking; I hadn't given it any thought. I suppose I could lend a hand with certain requests if the opportunity arises — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Hi Martin, please confirm that you have WP:2FA enabled as required for IAdmin flag. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WilyD (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)}

If I'm reading it right, I think I'm eligible to ask for the admin bit back? I didn't make any edits for ~26 months link, and haven't made any admin actions for ~47 months also link, which is less than the three and five years the message left on my talk page says would make me re-RFA? My kid is now old enough he often wants me to leave him alone, so I've a bit more time these days  ;) Cheers, WilyD 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status notes:

RfA from 2007-06-01

Admin access was removed 2018-06-01 for total inactivity

Last administrative log appears to be: 2015-11-13

— xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD: everything appears to be in order for reinstatement, there is a standard 24-hour hold on these requests for community comment. I suggest you update your user and talk pages to indicate you are back to editing, as well as look over some of the Admin Newsletter Archives to catch up on what has been going on for the last few years. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-Dokey. WilyD 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty, thanks. WilyD 18:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel (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 restoration of the admin flag that was fairly recently removed for inactivity. I hope and intent to resume more regular activity. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was desysoped on 2019-08-01 for inactivity, last admin logged action was 2018-06-27. Appears to be in order for restoration after a 24-hour standard hold for comments. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this user has been desysopped for inactivity. DES, why so many long periods of complete inactivity? --valereee (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I don't think it's any of our business why there are many long periods of inactivity. I'm sure plenty of our admins have lives outside the project. As concerns the restoration of rights, everything looks in order. Maxim_(talk) 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be asking about it if it were a fresh RfA. I think that makes it a valid question. --valereee (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if it were an RfA. This is a request to restore the right under the current guidelines for restoration due to loss for inactivity. The user is not required to answer questions or explain the reason for inactivity, whether this occurred more than once, etc. They can offer an answer, but an explanation is not required, N.J.A. | talk 12:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If people want to change the resysop policy WT:ADMIN is the place to do it not here. There’s an open RfC that still needs to be closed there now on the issue, or people are free to make new suggestions, but as it stands this policy is clear that a resysop is allowed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever, the "24 hour hold for comments" means, surely it means people like Valereee can comment with a question about the circumstances. Whether DESeigel decides to make some response is up to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alanscottwalker: it is primarily to allow for editors to raise policy-related issues regarding WP:RESYSOP. General questions may be posed, however they are not required to be answered. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to your second sentence, I think I said as much. But this is what RESYSOP says: "...it is required that a minimum of 24 hours elapse for multiple bureaucrats and other editors to comment on the request before restoring permissions. This time may be lengthened at a bureaucrat's discretion, if new information arises." So, the period includes inquiries into new information, and is not limited to commentary regarding policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind the 24 hour period's purpose is listed as being "To allow time for requests to be checked thoroughly" and the other numbered parts of that section specify what is to be checked. We certainly could make mistakes in thinking that someone meets or doesn't meet the requirements, and the hold allows for anyone to raise such a concern. Anyone is welcome to participate in these discussion, though we are not going to extend time normally just because there are off-topic questions pending. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It remains that good faith questions are allowed, and what crats should not be doing is saying to someone like Valereee 'don't ask' or perhaps even worse, 'you're being impertinent.' DESiegel has now responded, without any sense that there is impropriety in asking. There is nothing wrong with learning about Wikipedia inactivity through one person's experience, and it may be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to respond to Valereee and any others with similar questions. If I am to resume activity as an admin, I ought to have the trust of the community, or at least to deserve that trust. I had my work and life responsibilities increase to the point that I didn't have time to edit on a regular basis, and I find very irregular editing not so rewarding, and particularly admin work not something I can usefully do for just a few posts a month. I now expect to be able to resume a more regular editing pace at least for the near future. In fact I plan to attend an edit-a-thon next week. Beyond that, I cannot predict. I am probably likely to be something of an all-or-nothing editor, either almost every day for months, or nothing at all. I think I have made a number of useful contributions over the years, both as an editor and as an admin. I wish to resume making such. I can't see how that is a downside, even if I can't promise to continue at a fixed rate indefinitely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I would add that I much prefer to be addressed and refereed to as "he" and "him", not "they" and "them". I understand that many people do now prefer that form, and that is fine for them. I have this preference listed in my profile. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I should mention that my password here has never been used on any other site, and is not weak. I am an IT professional in my day job, and I am aware of the needs for account security. To the best of my knowledge, this accoutn has never been compromised. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in the process of reviewing all issues of the admin newsletter for the past yeasr, to be sure I am aware o relevant policy changes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're well within our current standards, they'll flip your switch in a few hours, don't sweat it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

• No concerns here. –xeno^talk 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done –xeno^talk 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a request for comment on implementing the community consensus for a stricter resysop policy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]