| Revision as of 22:02, 11 July 2010 editRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits →Rename: link pages← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 50) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 50 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| }}{{/Header}} | |||
| {{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| <!-- Header section, please do not change or move this --><br style="clear:both;"> | |||
| == RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures == | |||
| == Asking for adminship back == | |||
| {{resolved|1=The bit has been returned. If you wish to discuss the policy, that should be done at ]. There is nothing further to discuss on this page. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is currently a ] which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I am a wikipedia user of a little over 5 years and a former admin on meta and en-wiki ~3 years ago and resigned due to taking a long wikibreak. My reasoning was that I didn't want some random user to find my page asking for help, only to not get a response (even with a disclaimer). If deemed reasonable I would like to be an administrator again. | |||
| :I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) ] (]) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Here's the edit where I asked for de-adminship voluntarily (no controversy involved) - . | |||
| ::Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met. | |||
| ::Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. ] (]/]) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. ] (]) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --]'']''] 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Primefac}} . ] (]) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Here's an little edit graph for wikipedia (english of course) . | |||
| :::::::I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. ] (]/]) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Resysop request (Daniel) == | |||
| Thank you for your time. | |||
| *{{rfplinks|Daniel}} | |||
| ] 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you made an effort to catch up on all the changes to policy (and indeed to the sysop bit itself) since 2006? ] (]) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per ], upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (], ). | |||
| I've re-read the usual, such as ], ] (inc. subpages), CSD policy, etc.. As for the sysop bit question, are you referring to the new umbrella of permissions administrators get now (AWB, etc.)? If not, then please do let me know, as I've read every page I could and don't see much referring to the bit itself. | |||
| Original desysop request ] in the BN archives for ease of reference. | |||
| Generally though, I don't use administrative tools unless I'm confident in my knowledge of the policy and use of the tool, and I think my log reflects that. | |||
| Thanks,<br>] (]) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] from years ago for reference. | |||
| :Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::An early Welcome Back, ]! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, ] (]) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{done}} | |||
| Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also, thank you very much for the response. If you have any other questions, please ask; if there is anything else I should know that I missed, please let me know, even if this request isn't granted. ] 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no issues which would prevent returning the bit. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::While Julian has a valid point asking RN to brush up on current policy, this shouldn't be a requirement for RN to regain their bit. After all, they should not be treated differently than any admin who was simply inactive for three years without resigning their bit. Regards ''']]''' 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't recall this user, but I also agree with Joe and SoWhy. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't disagree, but Julian makes a reasonable point- admins now have access to revdel, pending changes protection and the abuse filter, most, if not all of which, were unheard of when RN took their wikibreak. ] | ] 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *That adminship is for life is an organisational disgrace, so I think that Julian is perfectly entitled to ask the obvious questions. Not that it will make any difference of course. ] ] 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **Give me a break. I see no one stating that Julian wasn't entitled to ask question. Those of us who commented simply stated we saw nothing which would prevent the bit from being returned. Please stop implying we meant anything more than that. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| No, I appreciate any questions, seriously - especially with the new tools admins get now I think discussions like this are a good thing. I do remember revdel (or at least a version of it) and have perused over the text of all the other powers; back then it was restricted to people with oversight (and stewards if I recall?). This new version seems different and I'm not 100% yet what the difference is between the admin version and the oversight version is (if any) yet even after several readings. Generally in a case like this if I still didn't fully understand it I would ask another administrator or similar about it, especially given its potential for abuse. I'm pretty familiar with pending changes protection and the page on that is pretty straightforward. | |||
| Again, if anyone has any hesistations, please spell it out and let me know; being an administrator without the confidence of someone is not something I desire. ] 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I had a look through your logs and I don't see anything concerning. That said, are you up on the ] as it is now? I notice several of the categories you used "back then" have since been moved/replaced and one or 2 new criteria have been brought in. ] | ] 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} The current revdel is the same (afaik) that oversighters have, although on a different level. It was enabled basically to make it unnecessary for admins to delete and selectively restore an article to remove one or more revisions. Oversight still exists as a way to remove such revisions from the sight of all users, including admins. Regards ''']]''' 19:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Totally agree with Malleous, the fact that admin status is allegedly for life is a disgrace and unsupportable as an authoritative claim. This returning user has been away longer than he was active and has no lifetime right to any authority here. Ask him to open a RFA and we can see if the community supports users having a lifetime authority here and if the community supports leavers returning after over three years and immediately having automatic authoritative tools here. ] (]) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You and Malleus may very well be right, but denying this user the return of the bit will do nothing to change the policy as you advocate. —] (]) 20:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not denying it is simply asking him to see if there is community support for his desire. ] (]) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If RN had simply left or edited only a little during this time but kept the bit, we wouldn't be having this discussion as no abuse whatsoever of the bit has been presented here. If you want a policy change on inactive admins or such, propose a policy change, but this is not the time nor forum for that. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::ec addition to reply to ]..your comment is correct also, this case of a long term user returning like this may well be something to take to the community for feedback as per the automatic for life resopping guideline (please provide a link to this part of the policy/guideline please) if the returnee feels he has community support and opens an RFA we will get some feedback on that issue. ] (]) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ec reply to Rlevse, it is clearly the time to raise the issue, I strongly object to this returnee after such a long period of absence being automatically given administrative authority. ] (]) 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * While Malleus Fatuorum and Off2riorob may decry the "admin for life" culture that is a fact of life here, their objections are moot; the failure of the recent Rfc ], which administrator votes helped deep-six, shows there is little hope of even modifying it soon. Term limits have also been rejected by the community as well, and I see little desire among Wikipedians to reopen that issue. ''I believe there is no precedent for a requirement that former admins must submit to another Rfa, and doing so now would open yet another can of worms.'' Given these facts, all any of us can do, regardless of what we might wish, is to put a good face on it - so, welcome back to adminship, RN. ] 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the kind of personalized comment from Justafax that is actually disruptive, he simply objects to anything to do with me nothing actually to do with the issue under discussion at all. ] (]) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Both Malleus and Randy are correct. This is not the correct forum, and inevitably someone will be along shortly to flip the bit back on, irrespective of anything - no offence at all to RN intended (I see no issue with the resysop FWIW). Rob - by arguing the toss over this you're simply adding to the big "WP:DEAL" thing over adminship. | |||
| If admins are just people with a few buttons on a website that other people on the website don't have (which they are) then it should be "easy come, easy go". I understand concerns about legacy admins regaining the tools (I have in the past being very vocal '''against''' legacy admins and in particular bureaucrats) but I've changed my mind to think that if we really want to de-escalate the "them versus us" cancer spreading on WP betweeen admins and non admins then uncontroversial resysops may be a good place to start. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Quite frankly, after the Tbdsy fiasco, I think admins who have been away for a long time and want their bits back should at least be subjected to ''some'' scrutiny to make sure they're still up to the job (no offence to RN, who I believe ''is'') since it's so damn hard to get rid of admins like Tbdsy who insist on disrupting the project. ] | ] 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict, @Off2riorob) Sorry, but I have this page watchlisted and comment here often, for what it is worth. AGF, eh? ] 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because he is still upset because I won a content dispute over a year ago to remove a POV comment from the lede of an article he has ownership issues with, ] and he repeatedly shows up everywhere and calls for my indefinite blocking from the site, I look forward to his request for extra buttons. ] (]) 20:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no written policy on this sort of thing. I was using the term more loosely before; something like "standard practice" would have been a better word choice in that posting. This is akin to the difference in common law (standard practice) and statutory law (written policy). Standard practice is what has evolved over time as what is accepted by the general community (obviously not every user, that'll never happen on something like adminship). A written policy will never get accepted in time for RN's case and as others have mentioned there has not been much community support for significant changes in that direction lately; but of course that does not mean someone can't try again. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My point exactly, Rlevse. ] 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I've granted RD back the mop. ''''']]]''''' 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Surprise, surprise. ] ] 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it should be noted that there were objections to the process as claimed ''standard practice'' to automatically re-sopp returnees after three years or periods of such lengthly time. ] (]) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)# | |||
| :::The system is corrupt, but very few seem to care. ] ] 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps, but if you're seeking to change the system, you're in the wrong place. There's nothing the 'crats can do and, as Rlevse says, if he'd taken a 3-year wikibreak and ''not'' resigned the bit, he could pick up exactly where he left off with no 'crats involved. ] | ] 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}} x2: Is this going to go anywhere? Resysop on request is policy unless the desysop was "under a cloud". The argument, if there is one, should not be here. It should be at an ] on the policy, if anywhere; meanwhile, I don't see that the Crats can refuse a resysop request from a former Admin in good standing; this is becoming unproductive and the Crats are within their rights to resist criticism. This should not be here, because it is, as things stand '']''. Some realisation of that would be helpful.]] 22:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **Great example of ] by Malleus. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| **Nobody has the right to "resist criticism". But when did turkeys ever vote for Thanksgiving? ] ] 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ***I'm not suggesting that there is such a "right" as you imply; but you appear to be deliberately ]. Options to meet your criticisms have been proposed, but ignoring them and labouring the point here doesn't appear to me to advance the argument. ]] 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ****I am ignoring nothing. Unlike you, I recognise that the present system is corrupt. You, on the other hand, seem quite happy with the corruption. ] ] 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *****No, you ''imagine'' that the system is corrupt, without citing evidence for that contention. Had you said that the system is ''less than ideal'', and bothered to raise an ], your stance might have some validity; but thus far, this is just wind in sails, sound and fury, and meaningless. Money with mouth, please. ]] 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ******"There are none so blind as those who will not see." ] ] 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *******Why does the community so often complain when bureaucrats make the decisions they have been elected to make? —<strong>]</strong>] 23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ******* What???? I'm an admin, and a very busy admin. As far as I'm concerned, you either shit or get off the pot. Start an RFC or STFU, please. ]] 23:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *] - ] (]) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :As Biblio gave the mop back aobut 1.5 hours ago, pls take this argument to RFC or something. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly so. The crats operate within their parameters and cannot remake or unmake policy. As I see it, their functions involve considerably less discretion than is allowed to admins. However, if you don't like it, flag-waving here ain't the way to move forward. ]] 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or just let's ignore the corruption, which is much easier. ] ] 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Source? I say again, put up or shut up. Start an RFC, if you like, but if you're too much of a coward to rely on unsupported rhetoric, as opposed to evidence, then you don't merit any credence in this discussion. ]] 23:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Biblio, that was a very surprising decision on your part, considering the objections raised to summarily giving the sysop right back to RN. I don't believe in making things a bigger deal than they used to be, and I don't have anything personal against RN, but four years of minimal activity is a long time. If RN ran for RfA right now, do you think he would pass? I think the answer is clear, and that this particular course of action (reassigning the bit without much serious consideration) is inappropriate. ] (]) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there were objections to this action and no reason to act in any hurry, I also objected to the users administrative contribution. ] (]) 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not surprising at all. It's standard practice. As others have pointed out, you can bitch about current practice if you like, but this is not the place. ] ] 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Current practice is for bureaucrats to carry out the community's wish, and to avoid independent decision making if there is any chance of controversy. This is not what occurred here. ] (]) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages weather, today and every day: cloudy with a chance of controversy. You cannot remotely be serious in what you're saying. ] ] 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Controversy is always a possibility, correct, but minimizing it is certainly an option. Please do not belittle my arguments by questioning my seriousness; if you have an actual counter-argument, feel free to present it. At the very least, it is more than clear that we need a definite policy on resysopping practices to avoid this debate rehashing itself so frequently. ] (]) 00:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No reasonable person could possibly think that this debate will lead to any meaningful change in the existing policies. Therefore, I can only assume that this debate is continuing for drama's sake alone. Please - find the right forum and do what you can to change policy there. —] (]) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Julian: the policy is definite and it is outlined at ]; if anyone feels this should be changed, a discussion or RFC at ] would be the next step. –]] 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That policy is really extremely vague. ] (]) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not exactly. Did they resign under a cloud? (which IS defined, by the way) If yes, don't resysop. If no, resysop. There is a reason we're called ]s. <small>(] · ]) · ] · </small> 04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That logic rather suggests that administrators who resign in uncontroversial circumstances have the right to have the status restored at a later date. I don't think that's quite correct. Bureaucrats may enjoy (subject to community consensus still favouring this) a ''discretion'' to restore sysop rights without requiring a fresh RfA, but I don't think we ''must'' do so. I would hope, for example, that any bureaucrat who suspected that someone requesting the return of user rights would use them disruptively would refuse to restore them and require that a fresh RfA be passed. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Uh, when did it stop being a high crime to use the name "Randy" around here? Or has the RevDelete squad® simply not been informed yet? --] (]) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Rename == | |||
| I am ], (you can check my status on commons where I was renamed), I am not going to go with the normal rename process due my high edit count and the issues involved with such a rename. (we normally have to get a developer involved in order to fix what ever breaks). I would like all the userrights removed from my old account to my new account. I waited to do the rename here on en.wp until I was no longer under any restrictions, in order to make the least hassle and drama, thanks. ] (]) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :given the high edit count, I'm ok with this as long as the two userpages link to each other. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024
Notices of interest to bureaucrats
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 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 | 15 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 21:01:34 on December 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures
There is currently a live RfA which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) Levivich (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met.
- Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. Lee Vilenski 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --SerialNumber54129 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: They've accepted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: They've accepted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Resysop request (Daniel)
- Daniel (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)
Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per WP:ACE2024, upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (statement, comment).
Original desysop request here in the BN archives for ease of reference.
Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — xaosflux 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Done
Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)