This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Voldemort (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 7 October 2011 (→Re-sysop request.: A couple of responses (AD & EJ).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:14, 7 October 2011 by Lord Voldemort (talk | contribs) (→Re-sysop request.: A couple of responses (AD & EJ).)(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 13:50:48 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)
- Thanks to both of you. —WFC— 16:24, 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)
There is no policy-based reason to deny adminship; however, I don't see any policy-based reason for granting it either. This is an admin who has been mostly absent since 2006 and I honestly cannot see what net positive there is in granting the tools whilst they are inactive. Perhaps bureaucrats should not grant yet but after a month or so of sustained editing. Otherwise, the bit will be regranted, removed again in a year, and we'll be back to square 1 again. Seems a waste of time to me.
I notice a recent requester - inactive for nine years hasn't edited since making the request here. It's a good thing bureaucrats used their common sense rather than blindly following policy in that case.
I'm not suggesting that Lord V will make a bad admin, but the whole point of the policy is to remove inactive admins. There is no obligation for bureaucrats to reinstate rights immediately. No harm in waiting whatsoever - Lord V managed fine for 5 years hardly using admin rights, so I'm sure there won't be a problem in waiting a while. AD 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lord Voldemort might be asked to confirm his identity, as in a the recent case of User:LC. Our policy does not seem to give bureaucrats any discretion about the return of an admin who was desysopped only for inactivity, since by definition they did not resign under a cloud. The deleted page mentioned above by WFC seems to be a joke page, not an actual enemies list. It was created by another user and was never edited by LV himself. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- How would I go about confirming my identity? Shall I email you from my LordBishopVoldemort email account? Thanks. --LV 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concern and comments, AD, but I can't help but to disagree here. (Sheesh, give me some time away from the encyclopedia, and basically the first thing I do when back is have a disagreement.) :-) I was told that, "This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way." Also, "This desysopping is not to be considered... a reflection on the user's ... rights to... the admin tools." In addition, "If the user returns to Misplaced Pages, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion as long as there are no issues with the editor's identity and they stopped editing Misplaced Pages while still in good standing or in uncontroversial circumstances." So, while the policy states that there is no good reason to deny me to tools again, it does also state that I may be resysopped without discussion since I have no issues with my identity, and am still in good standing (at least I hope so). Maybe I'm rules lawyering a bit, but somehow I do feel as if a refusal is a negative reflection on me.
- On a side note, I must say I'm a little disappointed that this is even a debate. This is supposed to be one of those "uncontroversial" cases. By asking for my tools back, it is prima facie evidence (pouring one out for kmweber) that I'm not inactive. --LV 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)