Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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

Eddie891 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Hi, requesting desysop. It has been a pleasure. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done, with apologies for the mangled link and "resysop". Primefac (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was the link mangled due to haste to desysop them before other bureaucrats got to do it? I understand bureaucrats don't have much opportunity to use their rights these days, but we expect them to use it with care. Perhaps mandating a 24 hour wait period before processing a non emergency desysop request, like how it is done by stewards, is a good idea? It would also serve as a safeguard against impulsive desysop requests like [1]. 2409:4071:E07:B5FD:0:0:4388:8B0C (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, it got mangled because I always forget that when I copy an oldid I still need to add the Special:PermaLink/ to the wikilink. This is not something special to my cratting or the "speed" in which I performed this request (that was just timing, as I was checking my inbox right as it appeared), it's unfortunately something that happens occasionally when I permalink. Usually, though, it's on a talk page and I either notice before I save (generally when previewing) or I go back and fix it afterwards. Permission logs do not give me that luxury at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your excellent service as an administrator, as well as your other contributions, Eddie! DanCherek (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

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 want activated please let us know. SilkTork (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply