Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive/2024/03

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Requesting restoration of admin rights

Hi, I got a notice from @Lymantria: this morning (User_talk:Mike_Peel#Sysop_rights) that I hadn't done enough logged actions with my account, and within 10 minutes, with no discussion, my admin right were removed (meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Mike_Peel@wikidata). I use the tools mostly to look at deleted items, particularly those created by my bot, which is why it doesn't show so many logged actions. If I had been given any sort of heads-up about the issue, I would have done some more logged actions. Please could my admin access be restored? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata:Administrators#Losing adminship: "Administrator access is removed from accounts which have been inactive for six months. Inactivity is defined as less than five administrator/bureaucrat actions or property creations over this six-month period. Admin accounts are checked for inactivity on the first day of each month. There is currently no reprieve system in place for inactive administrators other than filing a new permissions request." --Krd 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Krd: I've made way more admin actions than that, it's just they're not ones that are logged. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It is commons sense and no news that only logged admin actions are meant to be admin actions, otherwise the whole concept was moot because the decision to e.g. not block a user would be an admin action, too. Krd 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

for what its worth I think 6 months is kinda short for this. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I know the policy is clear, but it pains me to see situations like this. Mike Peel is still actively using their tools - I wish there was some flexibility in allowing him to continue to do so without making a token five deletions or blocks. At a minimum there should be some notification before desysopping to allow time to respond / make some actions for those that lose track. We gain very little by forcing people out. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As the removing steward here, I do agree with what has been said on SRP that inactive admins should be sent a notice a few days before their adminship is removed. But, I do also think our time of us being the only ones who can remove local administrators on Wikidata should soon come to an end, and this should be taken over by local bureaucrats after some time. EPIC (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Addition: If the bureaucrat do not restore the rights here, I would have no problems supporting a new RfP for Mike Peel. EPIC (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, we had a similar incident with Fuzheado in the past, and the consensus was he had to go for a new RfA (which he immediately did). With all my respect to Mike, he should do the same. Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do agree with that. But I do feel that it would be wise if sysops slipping into inactivity would be notified a couple of days before. Potential inactivity can easily be derived from User:MisterSynergy/activity/Administrator. --Lymantria (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree on giving notices beforehand, as my relatively quick removal is what caused all of this, and in the future, us stewards would probably want to avoid such cases. But like mentioned, I think this process should be taken over locally by giving local bureaucrats privileges to remove administrators, which has already been done on Commons and multiple other same size wikis, instead of having stewards do this. EPIC (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pi admin bot is currently still flagged as an admin, even though the operator is not an admin. Our current policy (Wikidata:Bots) does not specify that adminbots must be deflagged if the operator is deflagged, as far as I can see, but just want to point this out. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

There was no issue at all, especially no need to create a precedent, is the user could just be responsible for their own fault, accept that the valid policy applies to them and just create new RFA instead of this drama. Krd 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've now submitted Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Mike Peel 2. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Flooders flag

@Vogone, Ymblanter, Lymantria:I would like to request Flooders flag as I'm going to revert some large number batches, some information in Bangla was added wrongly by myself. Those edits repetition in the RC which does not required to passage. However, I would greatly appreciate it if I were granted Flooders. Will be remove itself once not required. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Granted for a month, you can indeed remove the flag once not needed anymore. --Lymantria (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)