Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJCdetroit (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 14 March 2022 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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 11:38:36 on January 15, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Misplaced Pages:Inactive administrators/2022#March 2022

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin action: February 2019

2. Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin action: September 2009

3. Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin action: March 2019

— xaosflux 01:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, Ryan Postlethwaite, now there's a big name from the past. SilkTork (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Every few months a name pops up in this notification that makes me wish we had a Misplaced Pages version of "Where are they Now"?-- Jezebel's Ponyo 15:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, haven't seen Ryan's name around much over the last 5 or so years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I think he nominated for admin a good number of the current 'Crats. He didn't nominate me, but he did support my RfA. SilkTork (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryan co-nominated me for admin, and both supported and opposed my RfB.Ryan Postlethwaite, if you're reading this ygm and thank you for many years of wisdom and excellent, thoughtful, kind-hearted contributions. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryan supported my second and successful run for adminship. As for Ponyo's suggestion; About a decade ago the WMF did a survey of former editors, it should be possible to try something similar for former admins, most of them seem to have an email set at the time of their desysop. It would be good to know what proprtion are just busy and might return in future decades. As for those who left because of particular on Wiki incidents, one wonders how many have checked to see if the concern they had at the time has been vindicated. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There's only a handful of Ryan's noms at User:Gmaxwell/adminship map; he'd look much more impressive if anyone would complete the map. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I found this: User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Adminship. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

That adminship map is fascinating! I almost spit out my morning tea when I found my own name and learned that Runcorn was my great-grand-nominator... bibliomaniac15 17:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It made me do my own map and I discovered HJ Mitchell nominated one of his own nominators so he's both my grandnominator and great-great-grand nominator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm my own grandnominator? _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just compiled my tree and there are some big names in it! Angela (self-nom) → Michael Snow → Fredrik → gadfium → Grutness → me. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a "big name"? But there's only eight letters in it! :) Ryan's inactive to the point of desysopping? That's sad. I recall Sabine's Sunbird being a busy admin back in the day too. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I just found I'm only two degrees of separation from Ryan, who nominated Pedro, who nominated me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Guess that makes Runcorn my great-great-grand-nominator. Useight (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that data only goes to late 2007 and has gaps as well. My own chain of grand noms goes back into 2003 and includes people who passed RFA with 1,150 and 300 edits. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Link or it didn't happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I've got me -> Kudpung -> HJ Mitchell -> Fastily (self nom) - only goes back to 2009. Ritchie333 09:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My map goes back to Ryan as well via Dweller as well as The Rambling Man but that branch of the adminship family tree loops there because Dweller nommed TRM :'-D (me => Dweller => Ryan Postlethwaite => Majorly). Regards SoWhy 11:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel that if Ryan were to see this now he would be glad we were doing this bit, so in that spirit, here's how it looks for me (apparently?): Dihydrogen Monoxide -> Pedro (co-nomed by Ryan!) -> Dennis Brown -> Sam Walton -> NRP. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not Ryan :'( He was amazing when we were both new editors. Incredible guy, always kind to others, always kind to me. Did what he could to bring out the best in everyone. Acalamari 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Some very kind words above which I'm obviously very grateful for - Unfortunately real life does sometimes lead to significantly reduced time for Misplaced Pages (If only that pesky real life wasn't an issue, we might have finished this encyclopedia by now!). Interestingly though I do about once a year have a flurry of activity and use my admin actions (Closing AfDs, blocking vandals e.t.c.) so must have just missed the 12 month deadline here - I thought I was supposed to be emailed though on top of talk page messages? I haven't received any emails so I'm slightly confused. What's the process for getting the bit back for when I do find those 5 minutes to do some work? Thanks again all. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship, all you have to do is ask. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ryan Postlethwaite: The bot report at Misplaced Pages:Inactive_administrators/2022#March_2022 suggests that it did attempt to email you, perhaps it went to a spam/junk folder? There is no way to ensure that an attempted email is ever actually delivered, but it appears the bot email function is working with other editors. You may want to try to send yourself wikimail and see if it is working.What Primefac said is procedurally correct, however with 5 contributions in the last 3 years, and 2 admin action in the last 6 years you may get challenged under the "reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" requirement. My suggestion is that if you are ready to return to editing, return to editing - catch up on policy and practice changes that have occurred since your last regular adminining (seem like in 2013?) and perhaps read through back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS; then make a restoration request here. You also always have the other option to just open a request at WP:RFA, where standard community consensus can be measured. Best regards — xaosflux 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What User:Xaosflux says is correct, Ryan. We'd love to have you back as an admin, but the community consensus is that the return of admin tools has to come as part of being a regular contributing member of the project. The community has indicated that it is uncomfortable with admins only editing two or three times a year, as it is felt that this is not enough to keep up with community expectations. There have been a number of incidents in which largely inactive admins have made inappropriate admin actions which have caused controversy. If you made a request for the tools back, there would be a minimum 24 hour hold in which 'Crats would give their views, and the community would also join in - like a mini RfA. If you made such a request after spending at least a week making regular edits which indicated that you were returning to the community, the community (and 'Crats) would look more favourably on the request. If, however, you feel that real life wouldn't allow you to participate as much as the community expects for admins these days, then it may be best to accept that your involvement will just be the occasional article edit and talkpage chat. Closing AfDs or blocking users is not really a pressing concern - these do get done; indeed, admin backlogs are not as huge and pressing as general editor backlogs. See Misplaced Pages:Backlog. We have hundreds of thousands of editor backlogs, some going back to 2006. When you do get a little bit of time once or twice a year, then sorting out stuff on that editor backlog would be seen as hugely useful, and for that you don't need admin tools. SilkTork (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Request Re-Sysop (Ad Orientem)

Ad Orientem (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

24 hr hold is understood. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Last desysop was in September 2020 (request here), and was done voluntarily without a cloud. Ad Orientem has also been very active recently, so no concerns there. Besides the standard hold we should be clear to resysop. bibliomaniac15 06:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Last sysop action September 2020, seems fine after standard 24hr hold. Welcome back. — xaosflux 11:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me. Respected admin who stressed out and needed a break. Welcome back. SilkTork (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome back, Ad Orientem! El_C 10:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Resysop request (MJCdetroit)

MJCdetroit (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Please restore my administrator rights. It was stripped due to inactivity. I was inactive due to the nature of my work and location. Thank. —MJCdetroit 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Rights removed May 2021, with last admin action April 2019. Numerically not an issue, starting 24 hour hold for comment. Worth noting that this is their only edit so far in 2022, and the last time their monthly edit count was over 30 was in 2011. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The last purely administrative action I can see was in January 2013. The April 2019 action was something any reviewer could've done. ( Peanut gallery comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJCdetroit Assuming that you meet the numerical requirements to be resysopped, which we will discuss, our policy has a specific requirement on bureaucrat judgement on your return to activity. Simply, it should not happen if bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor. Given that your last 50 edits go back 5 years, I'm certainly not currently convinced that you are likely to return to activity. I'd appreciate your comments on what you see activity looking like. Alternatively, I would recommend withdrawing this request and spending some a few months returning to activity as an editor before requesting it again. Worm(talk) 12:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with above, and recommend User:MJCdetroit also read the comments above regarding Ryan Postlethwaite. The community these days expect admins to be more engaged with the project than the occasional edit, and the longer the period of minor activity, the longer the period of up to date engagement would be needed to restore confidence. If you're unsure what to do, see Misplaced Pages:Backlog, which has hundreds of thousands of articles that require attention and don't need admin tools to fix. Another option open to you is to apply to the community via WP:RfA, though without sufficient recent edits that is unlikely to be successful. SilkTork (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Dittos to Worm. It isn't a matter of math, it's a matter of the community being very cool to the idea of admin regaining the bits without actually using them often enough to understand changing norms and expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline due to no admin edits within the past five years per Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship: "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." SilkTork (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If the other 'Crats agree that there have been no logged admin edits in the past five years, then - even with renewed activity - we would not be able to restore the tools, and User:MJCdetroit would need to go through a WP:RfA. SilkTork (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my past contributions speak for themselves; thousands of pages use the templates {{Infobox Settlement}} and {{Convert}}. I have/had never abused my position my an administrator. I see no reason to punish someone because they do not use a particular tool often or because they have been to or lived in places where water is the priority and not an internet signal.

I have seen how in-fighting, biases, and edit-warring have destroyed what was once a nice place to contribute to. This has disenfranchised many from even bothering to log on to Misplaced Pages. Wouldn't it be beneficial that more trusted people have the tools when need arises then only a select few? —MJCdetroit 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship