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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	17
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 11:20:26 on January 4, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Bot deflagging proposal

Please see the "Remove bot flag from inactive bots" section of WP:VPR, since if it should pass, it will occasionally require a few additional button clicks for bureaucrats. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking back the tools

JamieS93 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hey guys! It's been a long, long time since I've edited on here much, but a while ago I was an administrator, and a pretty active one. I technically haven't been inactive for more than three years, so it's my understanding that I can still request the administrative tools back without RfA procedure. I may become an infrequent editor once again, and it would be handy to delete spam and such if I encounter it. Thank you in advance. Jamie S93 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the name of a friendly admin that I remember well! Welcome back. :-) Thehelpfulone 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some things don't change! I guess it's not a completely new world around here, filled with unfamiliar people. Lol. Good to see you around THO. :) Jamie S93 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! The new rule is that you have to wait 24 hours from the post to get the tools back, so the crats will probably do it tomorrow. --Rs chen 7754 01:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamieS93. Like Rschen7754 said, there is a twenty-four hour waiting period. It may or may not be worth it to read WP:UPDATE since some things have changed, but you haven't been gone entirely too long. Check back around 00:04 25 May 2013 (UTC) and you'll have your tools back. For 'crats: JamieS93 was desysopped July 12, 2012 for inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks R and Moe. I'm in no hurry. :) Jamie S93 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pak aran 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it! Thank you. =) Jamie S93 05:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Availability note

I'm going to be traveling over the long weekend and not as responsive as usual. If some other crats wanted to help Dweller and WJB with renames, that would be grand. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin bit back

Hello, I received admin privileges under the username User:Richardshusr, subsequently renamed to User:Pseudo-Richard. In January 2010, I gave up the admin bit at the request of User:Moonriddengirl and other admins due to evidence of serial copyright violations. I have remained active on Wikipedia since then under the username User:Pseudo-Richard. I have not been blocked for any reason since then. Since then, there was one instance of copyright violation that I know of which has been fixed. Due to the volume of edits since January 2010, I have no easy way to prove that there have been no other copyright violations. I can offer the evidence that CorenBot has not flagged any of my edits since that date nor has there been any other allegation of copyright violation logged onto my Talk Page. At this point, I would like to request the admin bit back primarily because I fear that, if I let the adminship lapse too long, I will be asked to go through the RFA process again. So... I figured I'd try this path first. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. There is no lapse which you should have feared since you remained active. The only time it would require you a new RFA is for inactivity (no edits and no logs) of over three years. The only thing that could bar you from being resysopped is the circumstances surrounding it, which a bureaucrat will use their discretion with. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like you requested the bit removed due to a consensus of users saying you should resign the bit, and you chose to surrender it to make any ~~Arb~~ other action unnecessary. A noble choice that I respect, but still a textbook example of "under a cloud". Of course, I'm not a Bureaucrat and the decision isn't mine to make. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Bureaucrat note: My opinion on the matter—as always, subject to change based on the validity, strength, and persuasiveness of opposing arguments—is that while Richard did not actually resign the tools to escape immediate sanction, he did do so as a result of a significant concern raised about his editing and his (at the time) ability or willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As such, I believe Richard is not eligible for the standard return of permissions, and should resubmit an RfA. I also believe that Richard will be well-suited to post the comments left to him about the maturity and graciousness of his decision by those who had raised the original issue at any future RfA. -- Avi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern would be going through the RfA. The CCI is still open on him, but that's through no fault of his own; there's no manpower to tackle it. If he tried going through, it would probably be torpedoed just for that. That being said, the issues that led to the desysop were fairly clearly under a cloud, so "to avoid RfA" may be the only excuse to grant back the tools this way, and that's not exactly a road we should start going down. Wizardman 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is harsh commentary on the decision making wisdom of the community. Unfortunately, you may have initiated a self fullfilling professy by asserting that an open CCI is a reason to torpedo a RfA. Further, you have asserted that an RfA can be torpedoed, which is easily taken to mean that a single issue, or even a single torpedoer, can have defacto veto power.
To paraphrase User:Tbsdy_lives 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC), that Richard voluntarily and graciously resigned his adminship when criticised, while admitting mistake and taking steps to fix the problems, speaks volumes to his character. He should be encouraged make his case at RfA. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I of course hope my above scenario isn't the case since he has made strides to fix the issues, but this exact same scenario took place at an RfA ~~three~~ five months ago, so it's not hypothetical at all. Wizardman 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In all fairness, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5 showed that the community can be harsh with open CCI cases. I'm open minded, but it is no secret that some editors think that any CCI case, open or closed, is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think in such a case, he should be still run an RfA, but crats should give less weight to arguments that refer to the CCI and do not address why it is a continuing concern other than the fact that it is still open. For example, if the support percentage is 65-70% and a sizeable chunk of the opposers are just that, then crats could close the RfA as successful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis is correct that the community can be harsh with open CCI cases (and I would add that they can also be harsh with closed CCI cases, as I learned when I nominated someone for RfA who had some.) But I have to concur with the 'crats who've commented so far that a (new) successful RfA is needed for a resysop given the circumstances of the desysop. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new RfA seems to be the best option Mlpearc (powwow) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with what has already been said about a new RFA being the best course forward. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK... thank you. I asked the question and got an answer. So I will assume that the answer is "No" and that a new RfA is required. Thank you again. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

We'll need at least one more closer, and two would be nice. This may run until June 17, though the proposer has proposed ending it sooner: see User_talk:Theopolisme#Closing PC/2 RfC. (This may or may not be relevant to RfA.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]