Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for

bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 08:32:22 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

• Tamzin (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I was desysopped on my request on 22 September. The IRL situation that required my full attention has, thankfully, stabilized, and I've taken a few additional weeks to work on content and remind myself what I love about Wikipedia. I'm not in a rush to dive deep back into admin work, but I'm sure I'll find things to do here and there (famous last words...). I was not involved in any controversy at the time of my desysop; I had been involved in an ArbCom case request a bit before that, but it was closed by motion five days before the voluntary desysop, without any discussion of adverse action against me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard 24h hold in place. Primefac (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with this request. SilkTork (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been a month? Regardless, welcome back! BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Amanda (she/her) 02:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thus ends the longest period of time between resysoppings *ever* ... at least since the bureaucrat role existed. Graham87 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to call that a "fun" fact, but it's certainly interesting. Here's to hoping it remains the longest period of time :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the archives, there were no requests (successful or otherwise) for resysopping between Siroxo at the end of February and Tamzin yesterday. If you want a shorter gap before the next one you'll have to convince one of the (by my count) 57 people listed at [[1]] who have made an edit within the last 12 months to ask for the bit back (although not all would be eligible, e.g. I've not looked whether they've made 100 edits in the last 60 months nor when their last admin action was). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Engels, who was desysopped in 2004, has made over 100 edits in the past 60 months. I suspect they won't meet the "last admin action" requirement, but the idea of someone who was desysopped so many years ago asking for the bit back is mildly amusing... BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a "last admin action with 5 years" requirement for those who voluntarily relinquish the tools (as opposed to having them removed for inactivity) -

• WP:RESYSOP
  says If a former administrator has been administratively inactive (defined by zero logged administrative actions) for a period of five years or longer, and the removal was for inactivity, they should be successful in a new request for adminship to have the permission(s) restored. [emphasis mine]
• WP:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools says 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.

All that is required is one more edits in the last 12 months, 100 edits in the last 60 months, and no period of 2 or more years of total inactivity between desysopping and the resysop request. Although if the is doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of the admin tools 'crats are required to come to a consensus before flipping the bit. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in theory if someone was sysopped on 15 January 2001 at 0 edits, resigned uncontroversially off-wiki the next day, made their first ever edit on 2 November 2019 (the eve of the dawn of "lengthy inactivity" for voluntary resignations), and made one subsequent edit on 2 November 2021, then they would still have right of resysop under Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of admin tools, at least if they edit actively for a few months to satisfy the final bullet point. I wonder what the actual lowest edit count is for someone with right of resysop. (Graham?)

@Thryduulf, though, I think you've undercounted the number eligible for resysop. There's 108 at that page listed as "active", i.e. have never met the definition of long-term inactive. A ctrl+f for |Related gives a rough number of 21 under-a-clouds. Then there's 33 active users who were desysopped for criterion-1 inactivity; many desysopped under criterion 2 are probably eligible too (since none could hit the 2-year limit, and many will have at least 1 admin action in the past 5 years). Then I think precisely 1 vanished admin who's not at 2 years yet. So 121 with right of resysop is a rough upper bound, with the actual number probably a bit lower. Considerably lower number than I expected, actually. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First guess toward your question: RasputinAXP, with either 5,897 (per the edit counter at the top of the contributions) or 7,371 (per xtools) edits. I wonder why the difference. I looked through a bunch of other old resignations and all of them either had more edits or hadn't edited for more than 2 years. I believe the 2-year inactivity rule is retroactive, so your hypothetical person wouldn't be eligible for resysopping, but not that it matters. And I don't think the modern concept of admin accounts existed until sometime in late 2001 or early 2002. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xtools includes the number of deleted edits in total edits. The edit counter at the top of contributions counts only live edits. I do note a variation in number of live edits between the two, but that may simply be a reflection of frequency of updating data on both of those separate software formats. Risker (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're different numbers as they are two different means of counting edits: the so-called "system" edit count which is a tally system used for performance reasons, as opposed to running a live query on the database. More info at mw:XTools/Edit Counter#Edit counts. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit complicated. Early on there was one shared sysop password that was given out rather freely. The assignment of sysop to accounts came sometime later during Phase II if memory serves; even then given the rather sharply limited discretion and substantial cultural differences I would hardly call the concept modern. If instead you are speaking in a technical sense, the current setup of rights and groups really only comes in to place with MediaWiki 1.4 though to some degree it's always going to be a matter of definitions. (Non-bureaucrat comment)2603:7000:8B00:2B01:E047:9933:30E4:2382 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed re the history of early admins. As for people theoretically eligible to be resysopped with low edit counts, I just happened to run a query about admins with lowest edit counts in 2022, before the 5-year rule came into effect, after an offwiki conversation. One of the first users on that list, Sheldon Rampton, has 1,054 edits, made an

Wikipedians by number of edits). Graham87 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Tangentially related: I've just restored an old list of admins by edit count to Wikipedia:Historical archive/List of administrators by edit count after this conversation. Graham87 (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi 'crats, looks like I've not used the IA right that much — I don't see any pressing need to retain it, so please remove my interface admin rights. Many thanks! — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]