Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 6 November 2022 (→RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    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 16
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 17:43:55 on November 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Admin reinstatement for ClockworkSoul

    ClockworkSoul (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)

    Hello. In these parts I go by the name ClockworkSoul. I've been a Wikipedian for more than 18 years, and was previously an administrator. However, I've been effectively inactive for a number of years, and my adminship was suspended for that reason. Now I'd like very much to return to Wikipedia, and am requesting administrator reinstatement. Thank you. – ClockworkSoul 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be ineligible for reinstatement as an admin given that your last admin action was in 2010 and you have a more-than-two-year gap in activity between December 2014 and December 2016. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship for the requirements. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ClockworkSoul! Great to hear from you. I'd love to give you your tool kit back, unfortunately there has been a tightening of the rules since you were desysopped, and since you've not used your admin tools for over five years (see Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship), you'll need to go via RfA in order to get your tools back. SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I remember you! That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule. I wonder what its motivation is? Well, I guess I'll have to run the gauntlet again. One the the things I've observed that has made me want to return is the really burdensome bureaucracy that's crept into Wikipedia. I've heard complaints from would-be users about being bitten for (well-intentioned) minor transgressions (like trying to create an article). Having experienced more than one example of that on my return, I'm eager to be back at the reins. – ClockworkSoul 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the people who helped tighten the activity requirements I guess I can reply to this. A great many problems have been caused by admins who went entirely inactive for long periods of time, then simply came back and started using admin tools again without taking the time to re-familiarize themselves with current practices and policies. A lot has changed in the 12 years since you last used your admin tools, maybe some of it not for the better, but the activity requirements are there to reduce drama and biting of new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's entirely fair, and makes total sense. I appreciate the explanation :) – ClockworkSoul 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ClockworkSoul - you won't remember me, as I wasn't here when you were previously an admin (I joined in 2017, so take my point of view maybe with a pinch of salt). I share grievances any time someone mentions biting new users, (and potentially returning users such as yourself) and that is damaging to the project. The activity requirements are here to prevent users who are not up to date with the current policies from using advanced permissions and potentially causing users more stress or editing against policy or consensus. I would welcome anyone who was willing to put in good work to avoid angst for new users, but would also request that someone looking to do so had spent a reasonable amount of time making edits to modern Wikipedia before a potential RfA. A lot has changed in the last 10-15 years, and it's not unfair for the community to want to vet any new admin or those returning to the tools. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Thank you. I'm pretty excited to get involved in editor retention efforts. I founded the Kindness Campaign way back when (which has sadly become mostly inactive since), and my wish to encourage kindness and respect hasn't dwindled since that time. – ClockworkSoul 21:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ClockworkSoul:, the WP:Teahouse is now the location for supporting new editors. Stephen 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the Teahouse, new page patrol is both the coal face of new editor interaction and a good way to get back up to speed with current policies and practices. I've just assigned you the necessary user right, if you want to give it a try. – Joe (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe, sorry for stepping on your toes, but isn't that a bit hasty? A lot has changed with respect to notability guidelines and sourcing requirements. It seems like the very existence of NPP/AFC would be news to CwS. CwS's edits so far suggest they'd likely approve every article except pure vandalism at their current level of familiarity with the project (not that they have said so exactly). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The community entrusted ClockworkSoul with the administrator tools for nine years, I think we can trust him with new page reviewer now and, as I said, it's a good way to find out what's changed policy-wise. NPP has been around in some form or another from the very earliest days of the project and AfC since at least 2005. I think there's something to be said for bringing good old-fashioned Wikipedian values to patrolling. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am impressed by their demeanor. I hope you're right. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll not be approving anything at all until I'm certain that I've adequately recalibrated. Also, please feel free to use he/him pronouns for me. 😊 – ClockworkSoul 16:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back @ClockworkSoul, and good luck with your efforts to make Wikipedia kinder! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome back to activity. Your reasonable and thoughtful responses above make you sound like exactly the kind of admin we would greatly benefit from. When you think you might have a good track record of recent activity and feel comfortable with how key policies work these days, please drop me a line if you're interested in me [another old-timer who places high value on kindness to Wikipedians] nominating you at RfA. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I really appreciate that. Back in the day, I did my best to exhibit virtues that were often in short supply then as now: patience, consideration, and level-headedness. I hope to do the same going forward. – ClockworkSoul 16:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2022#November 2022

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

    1. Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: Jan 2021
    2. Excirial (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: Feb 2020
    — xaosflux Talk 23:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

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

    Please also remove my IA rights. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's been done for you TheresNoTime. If there are rights you want activated please let us know. SilkTork (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To head off more comments such as this, clouds are not determined until the editor asks for restoration of their perms. Primefac (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't me this time, but the previous such comment was from me at Pratyeka's resignation. I understand the objection voiced in Special:Diff/1119410844, but this is not about determining whether there was a cloud, and it's not an attempt to start a discussion. At least it wasn't from my side. This is about the not-extremely-unreasonable fear that the lack of such a note could lead to it being overlooked later. I don't watch this noticeboard, so when I make such a comment, I do so because I likely won't be present to voice the concern when it's time to voice it. That's all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion there is a difference between giving the current status of things (as you did previously) and saying "this is a cloud situation" (incidentally, as you also did previously). WTT below has given the current status of things, which will give enough information for any future restoration request. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, yes, that was non-ideal. I'll use more neutral wording when linking to current possibly relevant discussions in case I have similar concerns in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although cloud is not determined now, noting for the record that this was the state of the case at the time of desysop. The committee had unanimously opposed removal of admin tools WormTT(talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Side discussion on waiting periods

    Note that this discussion was split from #Desysop request (TheresNoTime)

    • I think bureaucrats should consider implementing the 1-day waiting period for resignation self-requests that Stewards implemented a while back so we can allow for cooler heads to prevail in situations like these. :( Legoktm (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. WormTT(talk) 16:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I generally third this (prob implies policy change, etc.), but given that nearly every time there's a request with even a slim chance of weather we do this same dance for a dozen comments or so, I don't foresee a world where a waiting period helps that aspect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I considered that, but decided our current protocol serves the user and Wikipedia better. If someone is here requesting tools to be removed, they may be in an emotional/unhappy/angry/depressed state, and may, under provocation, do something they regret with the tools. I feel we should honour the request as soon as we see it. If there is no cloud, the user can gain the tools back on request. Granted, they have to wait 48 24 hours for the tools back, but better to have that wait than to regret having deleted something or blocked someone in anger. Some people may feel the burden of the responsibilities of the tools at sensitive times. I would personally regard acting promptly to remove tools on request was something more vital for mental health and security reasons than, say, closing an RfA on time. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Legoktm the major difference is if you go to SRP and resign, it is a one-way path; regaining access via SRP requires a new showing of community support. — xaosflux Talk 16:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That waiting period was explicitly not wished for, and then also not taken. [1] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've ... shall we say "requested desysopping in less than perfect circumstances" (i.e. many would say "ragequit") a couple of times, and in my own case, not doing it right away would have increased my anger and stress. I asked TNT to wait a little, but once they make the decision and request a desysop, I think the respectful thing to do is honor their wishes right away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always supported the 24 hour period to desysop for volunteer situations, it just isn't an issue that often. Require a request, then a 2nd request at least 24 hours later, this is how I would do it, with it automatically resulting in a voluntary desysop after 72 hours, say. This way if they don't come back, they aren't in limbo. This may seem like a burden, but it really isn't. It's not like you must use your bits during that period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree there's an issue here to be solved. Whilst I'm not happy when someone wants to give up the tools - it's their right to do so. It's not a one way street - if someone did ask for their bit to be removed, if they did want it back then under our current rules they would get it back unless it was under a cloud. This way prevents potential disruption. I can see someone who was adamant they didn't want the tools anymore intentionally using them poorly to expedite the issue. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^This. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had pondered for a while if this was a good idea. But I think Amory's point above should not be lost: a 24 hour waiting period could, not infrequently, turn into 24 hours of attention towards a person who probably doesn't want it at that moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also do not support this idea. Cloudiness is a discussion for when they ask for the tools back. If it s a trulyt voluntary desysop, it should just be actioned with no further fuss or ...(sorry) bureaucratic red tape. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beeblebrox I think the positive case for a 24 hour wait is as a cooldown for someone who is rage quitting not about CLOUD. Obviously CLOUD discussions are part of what I reference in my comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Immediate desysop on request and then a 24 hour wait for resysop both felt right for me last time I laid down my tools. Please keep as is. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience, people generally do not make these decisions lightly, and an additional wait time will not bring any particular relief, and may generate additional frustration. Also, I don’t think this is subject to discretion, so it would need to be implemented by RfC. –xenotalk 20:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Acting on a request immediately isn't mandatory, so bureaucrats are free to use their discretion on whether or not they want to check in with the requestor first before complying with the request. I think leaving the process to bureaucrats' discretion may be the best way to adapt to each specific circumstance. isaacl (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      isaacl: it’s true bureaucrats have a pocket veto in WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, however there would be no way for a single bureaucrat to prevent all others from acting on a request without a community-approved process for delaying. –xenotalk 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      xeno I think the reverse is more likely - that most/all other crats would want to sit and a single crat does what is asked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume if one bureaucrat posts a response saying they're checking in with the requestor, the others will defer and not choose to short-circuit the discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are exceptions. IIRC I briefly rage-quit sometime around 2006; Raul654 (talk · contribs), bless him, sat on my admin resignation request for a little while until I'd calmed down. It wouldn't have been under a cloud or anything like that, but I reflect on that small act of kindness and understanding from time to time. I wouldn't want to see a bureaucrat's hands bound in either direction. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think any mandated waiting period is necessary. Leave us the discretion. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think 'crats having the discretion to implement immediately or not seems to be working just fine, and seems to be what both crats and those who have requested desysop in the past want, so I see no benefits to changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours

    Per the closing statement at the recent RfC, RfAs should be automatically placed "on hold" 168 hours after their starting time. The closer indicated consensus seemed to favour this being done in some automagic fashion. –xenotalk 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose it doesn't really change any thing we do (since we don't close early). Suppose if anything it could cause drama of the "you participated late and I reverted you" type. — xaosflux Talk 01:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A way to implement this change is to use a edit filter after the time of voting it disable any edits to the RfA pages except for administrators and bureaucrats to close the RfA, and bots to fix technical errors afterwards. Thingofme (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the edit filter idea (expensive to run on every page on the wiki, unable to isolate transclusion date). And doing it via template might have purging issues. Bot might be the way to go here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However a title blacklist addition, like Commons' Pictures of the Year voting maybe useful. Maybe a script for voting on RfA: Support/Oppose/Neutral with reasons like stewards election? Thingofme (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=1120330206"