Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 28bytes (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 22 April 2024 (Resysop request (Nyttend): done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    Crat tasks
    RfAs 1
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 1
    BRFAs 15
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).
    It is 02:37:42 on December 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Nihonjoe

    In accordance with Remedy 3 of the now-closed Arbitration case "Conflict of interest management", please desysop Nihonjoe. (Permalink to PD with votes)

    For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With massive regret,  Done Acalamari 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your work as a Crat. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adminstrator elections trial run

    As the most recent proposal for admin elections has attained consensus for a trial run, and it specifies that bureaucrats will manage the process, I invite any interested volunteers to participate at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Role of bureaucrats to manage process to work out details of bureaucrat involvement. (This message was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats; apologies for the duplication.) isaacl (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Nyttend)

    Nyttend (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)

    Requesting restoration of my admin tools, which were removed for inactivity. I've read Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_admin_tools but I'm actually not clear if I qualify, because I find some bits of the "Lengthy inactivity" line confusing. I was editing and using administrative tools frequently until 3 May 2021, after which I next edited on 11 February 2023, so my inactivity was less than two years long, but more than the one year specified a few sentences later. If I don't qualify because of the more-than-one-year line, could someone explain what it means? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, means exactly that, from between when it was removed, and now, which you wouldn't qualify for. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So if your understanding is correct, do I qualify for restoration, assuming no problems? I've been active since February last year, so in that whole time there's been less than two years of inactivity. The one-year line makes it sound as if I have to have just one year of inactivity to be disqualified for restoration, but if that's the case, I don't see the point of the less-than-two-years line. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was just editing my wording, I'll explain better here. My understanding is that if you have any two-year period without an edit from the date when you had the tools removed and today, then you wouldn't be suitable.
    You don't fail the requirements, the time is less than two years, so you should be fine, but as it's such a close item to two years I'd like a bit more feedback. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lee, I agree with your interpretation. Since the inactivity was less than 2 years in duration, and there are no concerns about current activity levels (over 100 edits in 2024 alone), Nyttend should receive the tools back following the customary 24-hour hold. Welcome back, Nyttend. 28bytes (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We'll open the 24 hour hold in that case. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +2, not excessively inactive and appears to have already returned to activity. — xaosflux Talk 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one-year line means that people in your position would need to go through RfA if they remained inactive for a year after their desysop. You resumed activity less than a year after your August 2022 desysopping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the explanations on one/two years. Once this concludes, and I have the tools back (or someone raises a reason to wait more than 24 hours), I think I'll propose a change of wording on one/two years, based on what's said here. I'd appreciate your help on the wordsmithing, since I'll try to improve the wording without changing the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]