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, 50

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

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

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 13:42:50 on December 11, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Role of bureaucrats in administrator recall process

Note that the Wikipedia:Administrator recall process that was developed as part of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has given the bureaucrats a new task. Once a recall petition has gained enough support to pass, the administrator in question must make a re-request for adminship or stand in an administrator election within 30 days. The bureaucrats are responsible to ensure that this is done in a reasonable time frame. If neither take place, then bureaucrats can remove administrative privileges at their discretion. Thus there is flexibility for judgement regarding what time frame is reasonable. Note the phase 2 consensus was reconciled in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall § Initiating RRFAs (comment thread permalink) to work out this task. Your support of this process will be greatly appreciated! isaacl (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an ongoing discussion about whether there is any flexibility with the 30 days here: Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#Outstanding questions. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:AN § Is WP:RECALL a policy? (see most recent posts at the bottom), some editors have asked whether bureaucrats are actually authorized to desysop based on this process. Is it possible to get an "official" answer from the 'crats? Levivich (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but I'd like to see a little bit more added regarding such at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall, where referencing the rfc would be nice. Also in the newer addition If an administrator abuses administrative rights, the community can require a re-request for adminship (RRfA) section -- did the empowering RFC require an actual showing of "abuse" of "administrative rights" - or could a recall be initiated for any reason? I think it is likely the later (such that showing consensus of "abuse" is not a necessary element.) I think the updates to the admin policy should specifically state that this type of involuntary removal may be performed by bureaucrats. Arguments of if the policy change is supported or not should continue in the appropriate venues as needed (i.e. not this page). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the original RFC proposal 16C specifically note that it will be the bureaucrats removing the admin flag during this process? The alternatives, I suppose, would be that a steward remove it, which seems atypical, or nobody removes it, which means the recall process has no teeth. I would doubt that the RFC participants had either of those outcomes in mind, and so it would fall to the bureaucrats to perform that actual bit removal. Useight (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useight, I don't think "who" should do the bit-flipping is being debated, if it is appropriate to be done, it should be done by us. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't think there's any question of if it would be us who would handle any removal of the bit. We would handle any removal of adminship if suitable.

I think the issue is the details of when a removal of admin privileges should be inforced. I agree that the process shouldn't be limited to "abuse of administrative rights", there's many reasons why one might get consensus for someone to have their rights removed.

Most of our job is to evaluate consensus, so we should handle a recall process now it is policy. I would for one, want the policy to specifically state what the correct format should be - should it be a case of an uninvolved user coming to BN and asking for the bit to be removed? Should crats be checking and closing the proposals themselves (if that's already been discussed, I missed it, sorry). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual "recall election" is effected either by a reconfirmation RfA, which presumably must be closed by a crat, or through admin elections, if those stay, where it will presumably be handled along with the rest of the election results. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'd like to see is the 2 new involuntary removal conditions be clearly listed in the admin policy: (a) being unsuccessful in a recall election; (b) refusing to start a recall election. Linking to the rfc that established the consensus for that policy update would be useful as well assuming debate about that rfc closure and its affect is over. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, xaos, Usesight, and Lee for the feedback. I've made edits to WP:ADMIN to clear up the "abuse" issue, link to the RFCs, and explicitly specify the 2 removal criteria (failure to start, failure to pass). Hope that helps. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Levivich. I made a slight grammatical change to your addition (changing "does not timely start" to "does not promptly start"), but I would like it even better if it specified just how long the user had. Either way, I liked that the wording allowed for any reason of not starting the RRFA, not just refusing to do so - as an admin who ignored the whole thing would be failing to start one but not refusing to start one, per se. Useight (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just changed it again to specify "30 days" (per the RFCs). Levivich (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad there's a discussion of recall here, the other twenty discusions spread scross half of project space really were not enough. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one 'crat who has weighed in here thus far is opposed to mass-pinging, so I'm not sure what else one would do to get 'crat input. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the question of "hey crat's are you willing to do this, if not what do you need"? being here - but yes, please don't fork the rest of the discussion here. My colleagues may certainly have their own takes on the current status as 'crats, or as community members. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop 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 ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Please remove my administrator tools for now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm super bummed to see this @Daniel, but I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for everything. You've been an amazing administrator who was always someone to look to as an excellent example of how to be, and I really do hope you pick the tools back up some day. If you don't, that's fine, I understand, but you've had an awesome impact on the site in a positive way. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let us know if you need any advanced perms. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins are going to have to step up their game. Daniel, thanks for the hard work and I hope you're sticking around as a mere mortal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Floq and Josh. I will still be active for sure, albeit at a lower level (I have 7 weeks away from home in the next 13 and it's summer here, so the 6 weeks I am here I'll probably be at the beach!) - I might even still close some AfD's once in a while :) I also look forward to picking up the tools at some point — likely next year — although I'll be keeping an eye on certain developments that are important to me when making that decision. Cheers all, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just adding my voice to the chorus here. Admins with a clear sense of right and wrong are a valued commodity. Enjoy the break. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel. We appreciate your dedication to the project. Stepping back is almost always a GOOD thing. Sing out if you need more sunscreen; we're well networked for international response. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive admins for November 2024

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

Yamamoto Ichiro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: October 2023
JaGa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: February 2016
Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: March 2023

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

Christopher Sundita (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: December 2022
Kbh3rd (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: April 2015
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Last logged admin action: December 2021

Thank you all for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux why does JaGa's eight years of no admin actions matter? He's not edited for over a year, so indeed he qualifies for desysopping; I just don't understand why you mention the admin actions. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Xaosflux, but I assume it's to note whether these admins would qualify for resysopping if they were to return to activity. Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools states not to resysop if it has been more than five years since the last logged action, so in JaGa's case he would need to go through another RFA. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should a resysop request come in, this is a handy note to help in the checks for restoration - if it has been a long time some eligibilities may have passed or additional discussion may be warranted. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of enwiki Admin rights (Dragons flight)

Dragons_flight (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 haven't really been active for a long time now, and will hit the admin inactivity threshold soon anyway, so I might as well make the desysop request myself. It's been fun, but for now other interests and priorities have gotten the better of me. Not sure if I'll ever really return to active editing or not. Maybe some day if life slows down, but I'm still proud of what I've contributed to Wikipedia over the years, and glad to see the project continue to flourish. Good luck to everyone else. Dragons flight (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please let us know if you need any of the advanced perms you held before adminship. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever become active again, rollback and template editor would probably be useful. At the moment though, I'm not doing much of anything, so I'm also happy to sort that out at a later date. Dragons flight (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work over the years. I wish we had an "admin reserve" where trusted accounts could be pulled out of mothballs and reactivated if needed. I guess this is a tiny bit like that. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting off-topic here, but the reason for the admin activity requirements is because there is a large community opposition to admins coming out of the mothballs who are unfamiliar with contemporary policy and community norms. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but in general the community is probably better off finding more ways to place trust in current active users than expecting inactive users to jump back in. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin election results - please enact

Hi! The results of the 2024 admin elections have been finalized, scrutinized, and posted here. The following candidates surpassed the threshold and should be promoted to admin status:

A bureaucrat can now enact the promotions - thank you very much! —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Everything is final and ready for bureaucrats to promote. WMF Trust & Safety made the initial post with the decrypted mw:Extension:SecurePoll results, and the 3 steward scrutineers signed the results page to ratify it. Here's a link to the page history if you'd like to double check yourselves. I've also double checked the names list Ganesh811 posted above and it has been correctly copied over. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but please next time use {{rfplinks}} so I don't have to make six clicks to get to their userrights. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]