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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 08:37:38 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Please remove my admin rights (William Pietri)

Hi! I have not used my admin rights in half of forever. It's something I keep meaning to get back to, but that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon. So, as suggested by the RfC and the assorted menacing notices on my talk page, I'd like to give up my superpowers. Thanks! -- William Pietri (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done thank you for your service. I've taken the bit away, and have given you extended confirmed. If there is anything specific that you want back as a part of the toolset, let me know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! One day, perhaps! -- William Pietri (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to William Pietri for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Voluntary desysop request (Bob the Wikipedian)

Bob the Wikipedian (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb)}

I am no longer an active editor, and I don't remember the last time I needed admin privileges. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: It looks like you never actually flipped the bit here. If you or some other 'crat could action this, that would be great. Understandable though with everything else going on today! Graham87 06:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Boldly pinging Acalamari, since you were active below ... Graham87 06:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done give me a shout if you want rollback etc. ϢereSpielChequers 06:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had so many tabs open I forgot to click save on that one! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

(Graham, I'd gone to bed by the time you pinged me!) Acalamari 04:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

		Job Done
		Awarded to Bob the Wikipedian for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Admin rights

Can someone explain the rationale for stripping admin privaleges from someoen who doesn't make 100 edits in 5 years? I've made about 100 in the last 4 years, but I keep an eye on the project and at some point might become more active again. But the beauracracy and beauracratic attitude at Wikipedia isn't inspiring me to do more! SamuelWantman 01:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sam the rationale is this community RfC from March 2022: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particularly bureaucratic idea. The main motivations were (a) recurrent issues with old admins returning to do some cowboy style admin actions that were particularly ill received (and frequently resulted in desysops for cause) and (b) frequent arguments about barely active admins who made just one trivial edit per year for a decade or so but kept their admin bits or even had them restored (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_41#Resysop_request_(Yelyos) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_35#Resysop_request_(Cyp) for examples). Given how much more difficult it is to pass RfA these days compared to 15 years ago when people like me made it, this led to a perception of unfairness in the process, and so the 100 edits in 5 years rule was the outcome. Compared to other large Wikipedias, it is a fairly low threshold.

Of course, the better way to fix the perception of unfairness would be to make RfA work again, but that is generally agreed to be impossible. —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#January 2023 (Criteria 1)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity, criteria 1. Thank you for your service.

1. Longhair (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

2. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

3. Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

4. Renesis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2016

5. Wickethewok (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2011

6. TimVickers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: December 2021

7. Steve Smith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: September 2021

8. Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: November 2021

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• dang. Going to miss Longhair. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to see Laser brain in this list, someone who really flew the “admins who write great content” flag. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023#January 2023 (Criteria 2)

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity, criteria 2. Thank you for your service.

Work notes

Unofficial procedural notes

Steps to do these: Remove admin rights from account, note it with -sysop; procedural removal due to inactivity per [[Special:PermaLink/1130806766#Wikipedia%3AInactive_administrators%2F2023%23January_2023_(Criteria_2)]] Restore +ECU if they previously had it If special flags (e.g. IPBE, EFM, EFH) were self-granted determine what to do about them (this is not a 'crat action) Notify the user, use {{subst:Inactive admin 2|suspended=yes}} on their usertalk Update the userpage of the former admin to remove anything that puts them in active admin categories (userboxes, manual categories, etc). If the userpage was self-admin protected, reduce the protection so they can manage their own page again Update the checklist at Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2023#January_2023 Update this checklist

Discuss Criteria 2 removal group

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of these to do, as expected. I put notes above if any other crats want to work on some, please just mark them off as you go; if not I'll get to them within the day. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

You deserve a bonus, Xaosflux, for spending your New Year's Eve/Day on this task. The list is long and I'm sure removing permissions is not the most enjoyable task a bureaucrat has to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll set aside half of my admin pay as a bonus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Within the day? Closer to within the hour. Well done. Useight (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notes, these should all be  Done. If I missed anything, please fix it or ping me. Happy New Year! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well, there they are. Many unfamiliar names on this list and a few I recognize. To be honest, I'm more concerned about the recently reactivated admins, some of whom haven't done an admin action in years who have come back to active service. Their contributions are appreciated, of course, but many things have changed since they were they were active on a daily basis. But thanks to all admins and bureaucrats for their service in 2022. On to the new year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's good news for some admins who returns to activity, and we have 97 admins removed, so this is the first time since 2006 that the number of admins are under 1000 and it may plummet to below 900 in this year. Thingofme (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Admins in Critera 1 and Criteria 2: Please note, some admins were in both groups; this may have resulted in you getting double notifications; apologies for any annoyance. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Saw this come up a moment ago, went to help out given the sheer amount but saw you'd already done it, Xaosflux! Good work, but sad work. Acalamari 05:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I recognize 5 of the names is all, most of which you all would remember if you have been here a long time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  About the same here. I also randomly picked a name I did not recognize and checked their logs. Their last admin action was six years ago, and they hadn't really been actively using the tools on a regular basis since 2008. This process seems to be having the intended effect of giving a more realistic idea of how many admins there really are as opposed to how many people have the toolset by default but do not actually use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I recognize a few more of the names than that ... among others, the list includes at least five former arbitrators, four of whom I served with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Same. Thanks @Newyorkbrad: for the note about former arbitrators ... I'd had only four listed at Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological/2023, but it turns out I never actually noted Steve Smith as a former arb (despite meaning to add that yesterday). Also checking Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, Camembert and Fennec were early arbs (which I hadn't noticed because they were on ArbCom before checkuser/oversight rights were part of the package, and in Camembert's case before either of them even existed!) Graham87 09:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks to all of them for their service. While most have been sufficiently inactive in recent times that saying this is like whistling in the wind, I still think it deserves to be said. Martinp (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I spotted one, Alphachimp, and while I first thought they were deliberately gaming the system since first being warned about being desysopped over a decade ago, I think they just simply lost interest in Wikipedia around 2007. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I feel hurt by this desysopping. Gosh, I knew many of these people too. --HappyCamper 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  People are allowed to move on to new hobbies. No one should feel pressured to continue to contribute here beyond the point which they stop actually enjoying it. Maybe they've moved on to something they're having a ton of fun with, like replicating all the technical bakes in Great British Bakeoff. Good for them! Valereee (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry that you feel hurt, and I do remember you from 15 years ago. Your work is still appreciated. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  The community never intended adminship to be a permanent status symbol, as you apparently see it, HappyCamper. Your own editing has been sparse these last few years so you have no need for tools. That's ok. You served as an admin and your life moved on from this website and no one blames you. We can find other editors with time on their hands to be admins. Please examine your motives in this regard. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  HappyCamper, not a crat, but just looking through your recent edit history, you meet the criteria for restoration of the flag (i.e. you've recently returned to activity; looking at your most recent edits it seems it just isn't one edit to maintain the flag; and you made an admin action within the last 5 years.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And that would be a great idea, seeing as how this editor has made fewer than 200 edits in the past 15 years. Clearly someone we would want to do some adminning. WTF, Tony? Valereee (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The policy standard for restoration is reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor, which was added as a way to make sure people couldn't game the system and just request it back immediately after removal if they didn't intend to actually do anything. Someone with 38 edits in a month is more active than many admins we have already who are engaged with the community. When implementing the new policy standard, the community did not make it a permanent removal. If HappyCamper has returned to activity, intends to stay above the activity thresholds, and they were caught in the removal window because of bad timing, then restoration at their request is reasonable.

  If they don't intend to return to activity, that's a different discussion, but inactivity removals were not meant to be punitive and letting someone who looks like they were trying to return to activity know that they're entitled to ask for it back after they express that they've been hurt is a reasonable thing to do in my opinion. I'm not advocating for it one way or another, but I don't think we should hide what someone's rights (for a lack of better word) under the inactivity policy are from them when they complain about a removal. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't punitive to question whether someone has kept up to make sure they understand current policy. It isn't punitive to ask people to show they've started to work again. 200 edits in 15 years is not evidence of returning to activity. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ultimately that's a question for crats if the flag is requested back: when drafting the language it was made intentionally ambiguous to allow room for judgement calls. I suppose my point of view is that if someone has returned and is making a decent amount of edits within the last 30 days, and says they intend to continue to be active, that meets the policy standard. That being said, I do think it is reasonable to ask that they show they're not eligible for desysop on the 100/5 rule, which for HappyCamper would be 36 edits. If they keep up the level of activity they've had, that wouldn't be all that long. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni every single admin that was desysoped was given a personal talk message including: ...Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN..., with a link to the policy outlining the details. I don't think we are "hiding" anything here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, I know. I was responding to the WTF Tony?, not criticizing you. It also goes to my point - we've already told people they can request restoration. If they don't seem to understand that, there's no reason not to explain it more clearly when they complain. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am honestly a little surprised by the vitriol and sarcasm being thrown at editors here. WT:RFA is a non-stop deluge of people worried we're losing admins, but BN has occasional bursts of editors ragging on returning admins who might want to re-start their editing. It's hard to get motivated to return when comments are met with sarcasm implying that we don't want them around any more. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Anyone can restart their editing. No one needs admin tools to do that. If a former admin came in here after a period of resuming editing and said, "Hey, I just had to ask someone to take a look at a deleted page for me to see if there were any useful sources I could retrieve for a related article I've been working on...can I get my tools back?" I'd be cheering. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this is where I am confused; you are happy for a returning previously-inactive admin to return to editing and then later ask for the tools, but someone mentions that is a possibility and you imply that they're no longer welcome. Either way, HappyCamper has not yet made any indication that they will be seeking the tools, so we do not need to make judgements about their character. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, what I indicated is that I think it's nuts if someone both doesn't listen the first time they're told and isn't familiar with the policy even though it's been posted to their user talk four times in the past 8 months, we still want to make absolutely sure they know they can ask for their hat back any time. So we kindly explain it again when they complain. I am trying really hard not to sound snarky here, so please take this as a sincere question. Why are we so set on making sure someone knows something that, if they had kept up even slightly, if they'd bothered to read multiple messages going back months on their user talk, if they still understood this place well enough to be actually doing any of the stuff that toolset lets them do, they'd either already know or know how to find out? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't read any snark in that, and I don't necessarily have an answer; I suppose one would assume anyone asking for their bits back will have read everything. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  If other people's kindness bothers you, could you refrain from commenting? It doesn't come across as improving the atmosphere here —Kusma (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I approve of kindness, but maybe we could try to look at that particular act of kindness from the point of view of someone who is not an admin. What does it look like from the point of view of someone who has spent the last fifteen years making tens of thousands of edits and is not likely to become an admin? Valereee (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Envy will not help them become an admin. I will continue to support changes to make adminship easier to get. Until a major shift in that direction happens, it is better for Wikipedia to take some ex-admins back than to run out of admins. —Kusma (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Can you try for a minute to put yourself into the shoes of someone who hasn't been an admin for fifteen years? Seriously, it's not envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think i fall into Valereee's category, i've been here since 2006 and am not an admin; much as i respect Valereee, and if she remembers i have told her so, i think that the kindness offered by Tony above is absolutely correct and neither unfair nor envy-generating. We have chosen to work as a community to build this incredible project; there is no reason not to behave as though each editor is an actual person to whom we would be kind in person, even though we will likely never meet them that way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank Xaosflux for putting in the effort to make this happen in a timely manner. I'd also like to thank each and every one of those admins who's user-rights have been removed for their service to Wikipedia, and I would love to see them return to activity, making a difference to the project as they have done in the past. I'm sorry that HappyCamper feels hurt by the removal, but this simple activity requirement should hopefully help us move away from the "adminship for life" concept and towards "adminship while active" concept. It will allow us to see the levels of backlog that still exist, and give us confidence that the admins who are around are actively engaged with the community and how it has grown and developed.
  I do agree with TonyBallioni that upon returning to activity, HappyCamper should be reinstated, and with so many recent edits, they are definitely on the right path - let's be clear, they've made more edits over the past month than I have, and I'm a sitting Arb and a crat. @Valereee, I understand that you may have concerns about admins returning from inactivity - but that is a positive thing, these individuals have put in significant time to Wikipedia in the past, and can certainly adapt to the Wikipedia of the present. I have no doubt that every admin wants what's best for the project. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the root problem of Valereee's complaint is based in unfairness. If making 100 edits in 5 years was enough to pass RfA, we could just tell HappyCamper to file a fresh RfA. But it would get SNOW closed due to a lack of activity; why should somebody get the bit on a very low criteria just because they're been around longer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-activating the bit and passing RfA for the first time are totally different things, and having the same criteria for both is counterproductive. Why should an editor's previous experience as an admin count for nothing? What is unfair is that RfA is harder now than it was 15 years ago. Being mean to old-timers doesn't fix anything. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What Ritchie said. Most people here are looking at this from the point of view of an admin. We need to look at it from the point of view of an active non-admin who has made tens or hundreds of thousands of edits over the past fifteen years and has little chance of ever becoming an admin. And someone whose last 200 edits go back that same 15 years gets led by the hand back to the mop. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If what you are saying is different from "let's be mean to old-timers so the newbies we're being mean to at RfA won't be envious" it hasn't registered with me. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, first let's define newbie...would that be someone with, say, 13K edits, or not? Because the average "newbie" at RfA probably has 20K+, and this "old timer" has, um, 13K. Kusma, I don't think we should be mean to anyone. But I also don't think we should effectively be saying "Please, even though there's no actual evidence that you know what adminning even means any more, please please please take this mop back."

And I do not understand why it's "mean" of me to object to that. I think we need to be having this discussion, not pretending this issue doesn't exist or shouldn't be mentioned here. I feel like you're valuing the feelings of people who aren't actually contributing over those of people who are. I value these folks' past contributions. I think we should thank them for them. I'd like to see us handing out some sort of 'Admin Emeritus' designation. But we need to get our priorities straight: the vast numbers of active non-admins who do the actual heavy lifting around here are the people whose feelings we should be thinking about. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think most of them are not as driven by envy as you imply. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention envy, and I don't think it's envy. It's a sense of unfairness. Major difference. Valereee (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from the practical issue that we need admins and RFA is not getting us enough new ones; A formerly active admin who returns to activity can be judged not on what they might do with the tools but on what they actually did with the tools. We are a volunteer community, if someone comes back after a long gap we should be welcoming whether their kids have flown the nest, they've had a divorce, their job has changed or they've moved back to part of the world where it is too cold and wet to be outside in the winter. The message should be "when you are back up to speed we'll return the tools" not "you are now as a newbie". ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. A former admin should be treated as someone who has already been vetted as trusted by the community. Now it's just a matter of showing they're once again experienced. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You and a few other "unfair!" people come across as so hostile and unwelcoming to returning ex-admins that I fully understand why they just leave again instead of earning this new experience in such a hostile place. If you don't mean to come across as hostile and unwelcoming, please try harder not to. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if I provided what I think would be better? Here's how the exchange could have gone:

• I feel hurt.
• Don't feel hurt, this is procedural. It's not a comment on your or on your past valuable contributions, it's purely because as someone who hasn't edited much in many years, you probably aren't as familiar as an admin needs to be with how things work here now.

I see you've started editing again in the past month. If you find you're really starting to get back into it to the point you've gotten yourself up to speed with everything that has changed over the past fifteen years since you were last really active, it's a simple matter of making a request. 'Crats just need to be convinced you have indeed become active again.

So that isn't hostile. It's not unwelcoming. But it's also not "Hey, doesn't matter that you haven't actually edited in fifteen yeas, all you have to do is ask!" Valereee (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)