This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Voldemort (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 7 October 2011 (→Re-sysop request.: Response to WFC about deleted page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:22, 7 October 2011 by Lord Voldemort (talk | contribs) (→Re-sysop request.: Response to WFC about deleted page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats. Click here to add a new section Shortcuts
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 | 0 |
| RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfAs | 0 |
| BRFAs | 17 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 13:54:20 on January 10, 2025, according to the server's time and date. |
Re-sysop request.
Dearest bureaucrats, I wish to be re-administratified if that's possible. Certain real-life events have kept me from being able to edit for a while, but I wish to remain an admin for the rare occasion I'm able. I trust this won't be too controversial. But my, my, my how times have changed. I am proud of the fact that I once had the 3rd highest supported RFA; now I am all the way down to 34th. I guess that just means we've had some great editors come along since my hayday. I guess that's a good sign. :-) Thank you. --LV 15:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I oppose this users resopping - he isn't contributing at all and he has made one admin action in the last five years See the users logs- resopping is of no benefit at all to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you mean "resysopping" rather than "resopping" (which would mean something entirely different).
That said, inactivity is not a reason to prevent resysopping per policy. If you want to change policy to require someone be very active in order to be resysopped, then feel free to start a discussion. I'm not seeing any policy-based reason for denying this request (at least at first glance). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you mean "resysopping" rather than "resopping" (which would mean something entirely different).
- I'm not "opposing" per se, but I've noticed from his contributions that this is the second time the user has returned from an 18-month absence specifically to comment on a matter related to his retention of the tools. The first was here. This is more a comment on the point of having a resysop procedure which is automatic, than on the merits of this particular user. —WFC— 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- This would lend itself toward the thinking that Lord Voldemort is only seeking the hat and not really interested in helping the project. Again, not a policy-based reason for denying the resysop, but definitely worth taking into consideration. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is no policy-based reason for denying the tools to any returnee to my knowledge (which was my point). Although if I were the crat making the decision, I would probably check the contents of the last page he deleted, purely because of the title. —WFC— 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the contents of the page he last deleted, I can tell you that it wasn't created by him despite being in his user space, and the title was pretty much tongue-in-cheek given the contents. There was no malicious content at all there as far as I can tell. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) If I'm recalling correctly, that was a subpage that someone else had made, and I didn't want it. Hope this helps. --LV 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is no policy-based reason for denying the tools to any returnee to my knowledge (which was my point). Although if I were the crat making the decision, I would probably check the contents of the last page he deleted, purely because of the title. —WFC— 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- This would lend itself toward the thinking that Lord Voldemort is only seeking the hat and not really interested in helping the project. Again, not a policy-based reason for denying the resysop, but definitely worth taking into consideration. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)