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 5 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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	163	1	2	99	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	6 days, 3 hours	no	report

It is 05:55:51 on November 12, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

More Crats please

The recent CratChat highlighted that more Crats are useful. There aren't that many of us, and at any one point in time, some of us are likely to be on wikibreak or just not very active. If you've thought about RfB, give it a whirl. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How high is the demand for non-botop bureaucrats? I did sometimes consider whether applying my deletion discussion closing skills to RfX would improve the project and the fact that I am not very active in bot-related areas was one thing holding me back (and cited as a cautionary note by others). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 'crats aren't expected to be bot operators; you would be expected to be well versed in the WP:BOTPOL though. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any administrator is willing to run, Primefac and DQ's RfB are pre-requisite readings. --qedk (t 桜 c) 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go the opposite way; that's why I turned in my bit, there's really nothing for crats to do outside of having a borderline chat that comes around once in a while. In fact more might be worse since that'd make any consensus likely that much more muddled. Wizardman 23:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^this; that's exactly why I turned in my 'crat bit, as well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce the number of 'crats to zero and let the WMF work it out. Right now we're already at the point that 'crats do nothing more than work out divisive RFAs, and as we all know, there's been literally zero admins going batshit crazy and abusing the tools and destroying Wikipedia in the past twenty years. Wow. Probably time to look at removing the position altogether, especially with WMF's "oversight". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a dam for the past 20 years and we've never had a flood, so let's get rid of the dam? Levivich (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away, sell it to you cheap. PackMecEng (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False analogy. The sporadic 'crat chats are hardly keeping a "flood" away, that I'm afraid is nonsense. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say we nominate a non-admin. It was kinda cool when Xeno turned in the mop but stayed a crat. I'd like to see that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that sounds too simplistic, idk.. it kinda is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had discussed technicality about this a long time ago with xaosflux. A non-admin running an RfB. I think most of the folks wont have a problem with such a crat/RfB. But sometimes I think such RfB might tank. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a radical proposal. Collectively Wikipedians are small-c conservatives. So yes; it would tank. ——SN 54129 08:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it would totally tank, but at least it'd be an interesting discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every non-admin candidacy to ArbCom. None of them are ever close to qualifying, even if they are dedicated members of the community, the lack of the sysop bit seems to most as not having enough trust, albeit some of them would probably also get the right if they ran RfA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider doing an RfB if such a proposal was passed, but I'm not really active in crat related areas, such as RfA, so I probably would fail if I tried. On the topic of the proposal itself, I wouldn't be opposed to such a proposal, though I'd still probably give crats the ability to issue blocks, mainly to enforce the bot policy. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC) (edited 13:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"I say we nominate a non-admin." - similar to nominating someone to test out a Ducking Stool. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal number of crats?

Is there an optimal number of bureaucrats to have? I note TRM's "zero" reply above. :) There are 17 with the bit but only about 13 are currently around with frequency. One of the reasons for some of the opposes in the current RfBs is that they are of the opinion that there are already enough. What is the right number? The only functionaries that have a quota for number of positions are the members of Arbcom, right?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some say there are too many. Others say that there are not enough, or at least that we need fresh blood. As with many Wikipedia matters, it would prove impossible to get a consensus. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the ongoing RfX chart reveals – to me, at least – that those convinced there are too many represent only a small minority. I think there's a very good chance that we have (or will do shortly) as many 'crats as we strictly need, but I'm also not sure there's any good reason not to promote a dozen or a hundred more. Even if the duties of the role are presently light, it's nice to have a group of thoroughly vetted, extra-smart people upon whom to call if we do ever need such a body for more than just the yearly nailbiter RfA. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cabayi

The 'crats have been notified about the questions under objection. Behavioral concerns regarding the new user should be addressed at ANI or by any admin who may wish to employ their best judgement. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've had bad luck with complaining about this sort of thing before. Brand new user History DMZ asked the first question at the RfA: "Based on your experience in dealing with administrators, what would you say constitutes being a "bad" administrator? (by "bad" I mean someone who should never have been approved to be an administrator)." This (Personal attack removed) should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I am NOT a troll. I am a concerned and engaged Wikipedian who has a right to ask questions. Please withdraw your unfounded accusation. Thank you. Furthermore, I move to issue a complaint against User:Bbb23 for hostile and disruptive behavior against me and the community. History DMZ (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@History DMZ: But you do not have the right to (try and) name and shame other editors outside of due process, which is precisely what your question implies. Please withdraw it if you do not wish to be struck for you. ——SN 54129 14:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Serial Number 54129: I NEVER asked "who" or names, I asked for "what" makes a bad administrator. I was INVITED to ask questions. Please allow users to participate fairly, and ask questions freely, thank you. And please don't threaten me. History DMZ (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History DMZ, I'm assuming good faith here, but look at it from the perspective of more experienced editors: you have something like 50 edits to your name and yet you've jumped into a frequently-contentious discussion area and asked a fairly loaded question (particularly the second part - please provide two examples certainly sounds like you're asking for examples of bad administrators). You've then self-described as a concerned and engaged Wikipedian, which is a little hard to swallow as someone who has edited in project space three times. If you are a genuinely interested new editor, then that's great - but your actions so far certainly do look like past trolls/sockpuppets we've seen. I would suggest that you withdraw the question and take a little more time before you jump into the deep end of Wikipedia politics. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing basically the same thing as Creffet, but without any pretense of good faith: Registered five days ago, fewer than 60 edits (most of which are to userpage), but finds a thread on an obscure noticeboard in ~10 minutes from its opening. Not even remotely suspicious. Not to mention the red flags littered in the reply (Creffet highlights 1 of those flags, the other is the entirety of the sentence about "the community"). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user claims on their Talk page that they knew about the RfA through their watchlist. That is entirely plausible, although it begs the question how they so quickly knew about watchlists.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for partially defending me. As a new user I moved quickly to learn the ropes far and wide in the Wikipedia editor world, that includes users and administrators roles. History DMZ (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Echo creffett entirely. It's a definite loaded question and being made 50 edits into Wikipedia is definitely suspicious, although I choose to err on the side of good faith. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I be allowed to defend myself? History DMZ (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell us what your previous account was.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first and only account ever. I am not here to waste peoples time. Is the INQUISITION over? History DMZ (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a bad administrator? Calling editors a troll on a public notice board. Levivich (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for saying that. Finally, someone who got it right. History DMZ (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, it all sounds quite paranoid and flawed reasoning. I repeat, I never asked for WHO/names, but WHAT makes a bad administrator. Same with the follow-up, I asked for examples for WHAT makes a bad administrator. I keep being accused of being a troll, a bot, a sockpuppet, is this how you treat Users??? Second, I've used Wikipedia for almost two decades as a scholar, does that make me any less a Wikipedian than experienced users? Third, I didn't jump into anything, I was INVITED via an announcement on my Watchlist. Can I please move freely in this FREE Encyclopedia? History DMZ (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bullying me. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is an occasion where the block rationale of We don’t have to play your games and guess who you are and what you were originally blocked for is justified. They remind me of multiple different masters, and figuring out which one isn’t worth the time. The point of sock blocks is to prevent disruption, not because people are evil. If you’re acting the SAME WAY as multiple NOT SOCKS and disrupting an RfA process, you’re going to wind up blocked anyway. Might as well go ahead and do the inevitable. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really should apologize to me. You are wrong, you know it, some users here know it, and people on my Talk Page know it. So back off. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, some of the people here got it ALL wrong, and should apologize. Thank you. By the way, some of you support me, and can see that in my Talk Page. History DMZ (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, who ever call you a bot, don't know what they are talking about, you are not a bot. I've been here over 11 years and I agree your conduct is troll-ish. Both Creffpublic and TonyBallioni have hit the nail on the head. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bullying me again with unfounded accusations doesn't make you right. I have no agenda other than to make Wikipedia a better place for readers and users. That also means we users have the right to watch over the administrators. History DMZ (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you people still have doubts that I'm some kind of fake, then I INVITE you to follow my progress as an editor. Now, can any of you geniuses assist me with the articles I'm currently editing? History DMZ (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History DMZ: I think you would do well to spend more time becoming acquainted with the basic fundamentals of the project (building an encyclopedia) before diving into the deep end of administrative processes. –xeno^talk 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: The second question (seeking specific examples of "bad" administrators) has been struck as a clerk action by Primefac. Whether the user is returning banned user, or should be blocked, is an administrative matter. –xeno^talk 15:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Watchlist notice

Follow up RfC is now open at WT:RFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think above serves as a good example why we should modify the watchlist notice to only alert extended-confirmed users of open RFAs. At the very least, we should explore that as an option.
Reason 1. New users have no clue what they are getting into even if they are allowed to participate.
Reason 2. Without regards to a specific example, in my experience sock puppets almost always claim "It was in my watchlist."
Can this be done or has this been suggested before and I need to shut up? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support it. There was a discussion not a long time ago, regarding eligibility criteria for running for RfA. Even though not a lot, a few points were made regarding voters. If an auto-confirmed user knows what RfA is, what impact it has, and knows how to keep track of it without the watchlist notice, then they are more than welcome to participate. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL and Usernamekiran: the last RfC I'm aware of relating to listing RfA's on the watchlist was this one from 2015, calling for the notice to display the notice on all watchlists. This was passed with community support of 85 to 12 (~87% in favor). You are welcome to propose changes, but this is not the right page to have a new RfC. (WT:RFA perhaps, invite people in from Wikipedia talk:Watchlist notices, MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages, and maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reactivation question

I'm curious whether I can get the bit back by request? Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship states that administrators that have the bit removed due to inactivity should not get it automatically restored on request if it has been over five years since they last used the tools, but I gave it up voluntarily so I'm not covered by that (or by the wording of the approved proposal in the RFC). I gave the bit up on November 26, 2007. Yomangani ^talk 12:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The resignation statement is here and was processed by Stewards since back then enwiki bureaucrats did not have desysopping privileges. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four hundred edits in the last three months, about thirty in the prior seven years. I think I know how this will be processed, but I'm interested to hear—Yomangani, what do you think the answer should be? Dekimasuよ! 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I wouldn't run amok, so if I was judging myself I'd obviously return the bit. Though if I wasn't me, I'd think it fairly insane. Yomangani ^talk 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also basically inactive for all but three months of 2010–2017, though I never turned in my tools. Dekimasuよ! 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent contributor in their days; and someone who should be absolutely a positive addition to the administrative workforce. Just give it please. Lourdes 14:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the endorsement Lourdes, but I should make it clear I don't actually want the bit back. I was just curious whether this was a case that had slipped between the cracks when the revised inactivity rules were drawn up. I have no real use for the tools and I am unlikely to use them altruistically. My query was really "would you feel obliged to return my bit if I asked for it back after 12 years (during seven of which I barely looked in) just because there is no rule saying you shouldn't?" Yomangani ^talk 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a silly "loophole" that got left in there, but getting that policy amended to even the small change it did get took enormous effort! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "loophole" that Beeblebrox has been trying to close for years, but has had, like you said, difficulty gaining consensus for even the smallest changes. The policy states "If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal", which got changed from three years to two years here. This particular user got really close multiple times, including going about seven years with a handful of spaced-out edits, but as far as I can tell, never actually went two years without an edit. Useight (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that I didn't fall foul of that rule, which is partly what prompted the question. I would think that I'm an outlying case: gave up the bit under uncontroversial circumstances 12 years ago and met the editing activity criteria for its return ever since. It seems the general feeling is that you wouldn't feel duty bound to return the tools without an RFA which was all I was really interested in knowing. Yomangani ^talk 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also the section of Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure that talks about the bureaucrat being reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity (or intends to return to activity). Regarding that point, I, personally, am convinced. Of course, there is the standard 24-hour hold period. Useight (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yomangani: as you are not actually asking for restoration, just asking about the process - it basically will come down to: if any doubt concerning the suitability for restoration is raised a discussion among the 'crats will be triggered. With your very lengthy break and self acknowledgement of "loopholes" the easiest way to avoid doubt and any drama would be to request restoration using the standard process instead. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yomangani: ^^^you'd have no problem whatsoever. Go for it. ——SN 54129 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There would be problems. That's not to say they shouldn't go to RfA sometime in the near future but I would hope they would have a reasonable expectation of what it would be like before doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, bureaucracy aside, I wish to state for the record that it's lovely to see the Yeoman and his picturesque edit summaries back. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung, please remove the sysop flag from Kudpung (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2020#March 2020

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

PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ^*
^* last admin action August 2012
Jonny-mt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: MarkGallagher admin rights do not appear to heva been removed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging someone like xaosflux only works if there's a signature added in the same edit ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh of the Wizards (Amorymeltzer—xaosflux) now done. –xeno^talk 15:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons css

Hi,

I am an Admin on lb Wiki and need access to this CSS document, this in order to manage our infoboxes in lb language. Can you unblock it, or give me the rights to work on this page, please. --Les Meloures (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request interface admin rights from your local bureaucrat. Your project appears to have one - lb:User:Robby - who is active. Maxim_(talk) 13:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]