Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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.

Click here to add a new section

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

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 18:14:55 on November 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily has been closed as successful

This is to note that the recall petition Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily had received 25 signatures so was closed by an editor as successful. Per WP:RECALL, The bureaucrats are responsible for ensuring that an RRfA is started within a reasonable time frame. If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion.

So a crat should probably be in touch with Fastily for next steps and/or when they start an RRFA after this. Soni (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No need. I'm aware of what my options are thanks. -Fastily 07:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting here (i.e. cross-posting) that I am not overly thrilled with the phrase "closed as successful" and have started a discussion about the matter on recall's talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't be pre-emptively closing these, and that there's not consensus to do so, unless the person the recall discussion is about has requested it. It can be valuable to see whether there are going to be a significant number of signers when deciding whether to give up the tools or run again. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, and this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop#Closing a petition although there is opposition to asking the question at the RFC with @The leaky cauldron asserting that there does not need to be a formal consensus to endorse the BOLD change to the policy that stated discussions should be closed immediately upon reaching 25 signatures. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf and Hey man im josh: I'm 'theleekycauldron', with three 'e's and no spaces, and I didn't oppose that question. I explicitly supported rephrasing the question to emphasize the "delay after threshold reached" option. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This post added to Fastily's user talk page could be an argument in favor of letting these petitions run the full 30 days instead of closing them down as soon as the reach 25 signatures or whatever the threshold ends up being. I'm not saying it would've made much difference in Fastily's case, but people do sign/post things IRL that they might come to regret and wish they could go back an undo. If someone who signs thinks the petition is to run for 30 days, maybe it should be allowed to go the distance. In a separate matter, it might be a good idea if someone monitors Fastily's user talk to try and prevent it from further becoming a magnet for drama. I'm not sure who monitors talk pages in cases like this, but what's happening now often seems to happen whenever someone retires, particularly when it's not under the best circumstances. It seems a bit late for those who signed the petition to try and soften the blow and at least one of the posts (also the same person posted below) kind of seems like an attempt at polite trolling. FWIW, two accounts posting on Fastily's user talk page yesterday had their posts were removed and they were subsequently blocked; I imagine there's probably going to be some more of these accounts showing up now that Fastily has made their retirement official. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 14:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The time to close isn't a decision being made by us 'crats, there is a discussion about this linked above, please feel free to join the discussion there. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Change to admin policy

Note to bureaucrats that this RfC was closed with a consensus for Option 2, so the Administrator policy has been changed/clarified. The relevant passage from WP:Administrators is below with removals struck through and additions underlined.

• Over five years since administrative tools were last used. 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. This applies to all former administrators

If there are any clarifications needed let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ganesha811, you should also update Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change and informing us. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• After WP:ADMIN was updated to state as such, I included linked notes at WP:CRAT and WP:RECALL that state that failing to pass a recall will actually result in access removal. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Fastily)

• Fastily (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)}

Following the outcome of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily, I am electing to resign. I will not be seeking reconfirmation, thanks. -Fastily 08:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Particurly after performing over 646668 admin actions including over 635368 deletions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all the work you have done as an admin. I have often seen your contributions in my watchlist and truly appreciated them. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Echo the above. Good luck, Fastily. Acalamari 09:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all the hard work you have done; unfortunately, it often goes unthanked for. As for me: I will miss you as an admin. Lectonar (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being at Wikipedia for 16 years. Good luck and have a great life outside Wikipedia. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastily. We appreciate the dignity with which you've carried yourself through these activities. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What a shame. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe "own goal" is the sports term for this. One of our most productive admins has just been sacked. I am not happy. And WP:RECALL is a trainwreck. I can't blame Fastily at all for saying "no thanks" to another RFA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the RfA process needs an overhaul... Buffs (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a perennial idea. WP:RFA2021, WP:RFA2024, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed, and several of the ideas that came out of the last round have at least been given a trial run. I still don't really understand why admin recall was lumped in with that, though; admin recall has as much to do with RFA (and RFA improvement) as the blocking policy does. Risker (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's quite frankly a bit late in the day to be raising that particular objection, but my recollection is that the idea was that if it was easier to remove admins, maybe it would be easier to make new ones, and therefore it is part of the same "suite" of proposals. Whether that is turning out to actually be the case certainly has not been established as of right now.

The process to get these new things up and running was both long and confusing and I, and I expect many others, kind of walked away after a while as it seemed nothing was actually going to come of it, but the folks who kept with it managed to get this through and here we are. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, JSS. On the other hand, I don't think many admins or editors would have expected to have an "admin recall" section in an RFC on RFA, so a proposal that failed several times when it was a standalone proposal managed to sneak past almost everyone's radar. I don't assume any bad faith there, but I do think that those who were running the RFC should have politely suggested that particular proposal was out of scope, but could well be run separately. Risker (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I certainly didn't realise that the RFA RFCs were doing anything regarding admin recall. I didn't feel I had anything useful to offer regarding RFA so chose not to invest my time in the process, but would likely have participated in one regarding admin recall. I support the concept of a recall process, as long as it is as fair as possible to all parties and all foreseeable major issues are dealt with before they arise. What we've ended up with does not currently tick either of those boxes, although with some major changes I think it has the potential to which is why I'm so engaged with the the pre-RFC workshopping at WP:REWORK. Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, Thryduulf; I do think the time has come for a community-based admin recall process. If it had been a separate RFC, I would have eked out the time to participate. Perhaps that is where we will be heading soon. Risker (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work, Fastily. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You might recall me prodding you to ask for your bit back every time you came to WP:AN to point out a backlog between your adminships. I've never regretted that, despite the quibbles I've had with some of your actions. —Cryptic 21:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your service and hard work here. At times like this Wikipedia truly does suck!, I wish you all the very best, Take care and stay safe. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. jp×g🗯️ 17:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. It's truly sad to see you leave like this. I wish you all the very best in real life and hope to see you return someday. The new policy seriously needs to be reconsidered, forcing re-RfA on only 25 endorsements, when RfAs are getting passed with 150-300 supports, is just absurd. -- CptViraj (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Resysop request (Tamzin)

• 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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I would like to reäctivate my adminship. Since my resignation in February and the feelings about it that I expressed in this audio essay, I've spent a lot of time thinking and looking inward. I haven't changed my mind about anything I said in that essay, but I have learned to better synthesize disparate feelings in myself, like my desire to help in administrative tasks versus my disdain for a lot of our administrative culture. This time around, I plan to focus on quality over quantity, as I've been doing for the past few months in admin-adjacent areas. As always, my gratitude to the bureaucrat team. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

yay :3 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What a surprise! :) SerialNumber54129 00:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Has at least a logged admin action from Feb 2024. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Really glad to see this! Don't let anyone pressure you into working in areas that might involve wading into it. I jibed with your essay in February, and it's only come to feel more true since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to see you return. JJP_Master (she/they) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy to see you back! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Another administrator back again! Congratulations! — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 15:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember to get some sleep. It has been busy of late. BusterD (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

welcome back :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I object. They said they synthesized and that is a policy violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, there's a shortcut for everything, SFR. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

welcome back!!! very happy to see this :3 Rexo (talk | contributions) 03:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Desysop request (Graham87)

Graham87 (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)}

Please desysop me; I've withdrawn my re-RFA. I've given myself the non-admin user rights I wanted. I'll keep my importer right. Graham87 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Removing per the not pass criteria for a recall RRfA. Access may be regained in the future via WP:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well but giving yourself every right under the sun before requesting desysop seems a bit tone deaf to me. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Granted, he did provide explanations for each right in the log summary. JJP_Master (she/they) 11:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting, there were some self-granted lesser included permission groups recently added, and user is a member of the special importers group. Endorsing all the lesser groups in my admin capacity as the RRfA didn't bring up any issues with them. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Should any actual use issue occur with these, please feel free to bring example to my talk page, or start a thread at WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think account creator is technically redundant - every single permission it has is covered by event coordinator or page mover. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC) @Pppery I think so and don't mind clearing it as redundant, though we might have something on a blacklist or abusefilter tagging the old group and haven't gotten through checking them yet. — xaosflux Talk 17:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC) The permissions assigned look to be mainly content related, and I don't think anyone's had issues with G87's conduct in those areas. He's held off from giving himself rollbacker or pending changes, which relate to others' contributions, so I think there's no issue here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Yeah I think we could probably give the guy a break on a few perms. Which he could've got just by asking anyway. Tone deaf my hairy arse. SerialNumber54129 11:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) To clarify: I'm sure it wasn't malicious and the rights could have been granted as part of the desysop as is often the case. Instead of being asked for they were simply just taken, which just gives it a bad taste to me. Serial, I won't comment on your "hairy arse". -OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC) A man's hairy arse is his own private kingdom. I shall defend it with my life! :D SerialNumber54129 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Yeah I just thought it would have been easier that way. I was originally going to ask/give myself rollback but (a) given that issues were brought up with my use of it in the RFA at a later stage and (b) I might not have much use for it after the watchlist purge, I thought it'd be best to not assign myself that permission. Graham87 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Graham, if there's anything wiki-archeology related that you're now unable to do, ping me and I'll help.  — Hex • talk (formerly Scott) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Seconded. jp×g🗯️ 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC) it sure is fun kicking someone when they're down, isn't it? who's next? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Sounds like you're volunteering to me.. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what it sounds like to you. Therein lies the problem. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) This seems in danger of becoming an overly testosterone-y or laddish area. If we have to contemplate Serial Number 54129's hairy arse, I would like to contribute my tits. Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC). I think it's safe to say I regret even acknowledging Serial's comment now. OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC) That is usually a mistake, yes (FBDB) Izno (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) And my axe! jp×g🗯️ 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

-sysop (Dennis Brown)

Dennis Brown (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)}

Please remove my admin bit for the time being. I don't need any other advance privileges at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis for your years of diligent competence in service to our mission. BusterD (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your service and hope you will get back soon. Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. jp×g🗯️ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, you've been an inspiration to me and to this project for nearly 2 decades. Thank you so much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)