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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 08:36:05 on May 1, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop request (Nyttend)

Nyttend (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 · te)}

Requesting restoration of my admin tools, which were removed for inactivity. I've read Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_admin_tools but I'm actually not clear if I qualify, because I find some bits of the "Lengthy inactivity" line confusing. I was editing and using administrative tools frequently until 3 May 2021, after which I next edited on 11 February 2023, so my inactivity was less than two years long, but more than the one year specified a few sentences later. If I don't qualify because of the more-than-one-year line, could someone explain what it means? Thanks. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that 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, means exactly that, from between when it was removed, and now, which you wouldn't qualify for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

So if your understanding is correct, do I qualify for restoration, assuming no problems? I've been active since February last year, so in that whole time there's been less than two years of inactivity. The one-year line makes it sound as if I have to have just one year of inactivity to be disqualified for restoration, but if that's the case, I don't see the point of the less-than-two-years line. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just editing my wording, I'll explain better here. My understanding is that if you have any two-year period without an edit from the date when you had the tools removed and today, then you wouldn't be suitable.

You don't fail the requirements, the time is less than two years, so you should be fine, but as it's such a close item to two years I'd like a bit more feedback. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Lee, I agree with your interpretation. Since the inactivity was less than 2 years in duration, and there are no concerns about current activity levels (over 100 edits in 2024 alone), Nyttend should receive the tools back following the customary 24-hour hold. Welcome back, Nyttend. 28bytes (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll open the 24 hour hold in that case. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

+2, not excessively inactive and appears to have already returned to activity. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The one-year line means that people in your position would need to go through RfA if they remained inactive for a year after their desysop. You resumed activity less than a year after your August 2022 desysopping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Not that my opinion means anything, but the fact that Nyttend has been fairly active editing means that few editors would be concerned about him regaining the tools and breaking things. We could use the help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  I second Dennis, and would like to add that Nyttend himself was generally a very good administrator whose resysopping would be to our great benefit. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  That "generally" is beautifully subtle  :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  He had like, what, one user conduct RfC 14 years ago? He's grown a lot in the years since then. Nyttend's a good egg. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps should be mentioned that the clock for inactivity should actually start from 7 July 2021 rather than 3 May 2021, as the alt account User:Nyttend backup would count towards activity. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to be a rather minor point given that there is (so far) unanimous agreement between 'crats that this request is valid and acceptable. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations on one/two years. Once this concludes, and I have the tools back (or someone raises a reason to wait more than 24 hours), I think I'll propose a change of wording on one/two years, based on what's said here. I'd appreciate your help on the wordsmithing, since I'll try to improve the wording without changing the meaning. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I chose not to reapply when I returned to activity, since I figured I ought to show that I could be active first (i.e. no question that I was just returning to get the tools back), but I'd mostly forgotten about it. But in the last few days I've had to report a blatant spammer to AIV, and I realised that I'd rather handle the situation instead of waiting for someone else. Once I propose a clarification to the admin policy, I'll ping participants here. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this alleviates the need for a long discussion at WT:ADMIN. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your and Isaacl’s fine-tunings look good to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

And to me. The alternative would have the effect of discouraging returning former admins from spending some time as a non admin member of the community before asking for the return of the tools, I hope we can all agree that Nyttend like returns should be encouraged. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has had a bit of influence over the development of these policies I agree. There's often a chance of running into the law of unintended consequences in policy wording, and we certainly don't want to discourage a return to activity before asking for the bits back, quite the opposite. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit

I don't understand why the 'crats appear to be letting non-crats (and non-admins) make decisions about closing the RfA. The latest thing is it's now supposedly closed by a non-crat and another editor blanked the entire RfA as a "courtesy". Courtesy to whom? As far as I can tell, the candidate has never withdrawn; indeed, they haven't edited in over 24 hours. And even if they had withdrawn, say e-mail a 'crat to express their view, why wouldn't a 'crat then close it as withdrawn? And since when do we blank RfAs? I know 'crats often take a hands-off approach to "regulating" RfAs, but this goes way beyond that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted per above, and to put my onetime bureaucrat hat on, I see no reason to blank it. People are having panic attacks over how mean it is, but actually reading through it, if anything it was pretty tame with a lot of encouragement passed on to the user. It won't be the last one like this with the new rfa reform proposals in place either. Wizardman 23:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as the "another editor" who blanked the RFA after it was closed, I will agree on one point: crats really need to step in here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Crats: you need to nip this in the bud with a polite but clear statement that non-Crats should never be doing this. If not, this will happen again, and frankly, this isn't fair to the candidate, who might have logged in only to see it "closed" when it wasn't closed. This is clearly disruptive and needs addressing, for the sake of the candidates. This is WP:RFA, not WP:ANI, the margin of error is a bigger deal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• What are you guys talking about? You don't need a crat to close an RfA early and it's usually not crats that do it. Just like AfDs only need admins when the outcome could plausibly be deletion, RfAs only need crats when the outcome could plausibly be successful. Otherwise it's just a discussion like any other and you don't need a special hat to see which way the wind is blowing. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so personally I'd rather all RfAs were closed either by the user who initiated them or by a crat. However, our exact wording says that any user in good standing can close these discussions.

I think any RfA that is closed by a non-crat without a withdrawal will always be contentious, so perhaps it is worth changing that to avoid these sorts of conversations in future (as well as the closure revertions and associated drama). Nothing untoward has happened here, but we do have enough crats to be able to monitor and close SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs.

It's worth noting that we have asked the editor if they wished to withdraw, which would have been my primary reason not to let the RfA run it's course. Personally, if I ran for RfA in good faith, I wouldn't want someone closing it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as I participated in the RfA, I was never going to take part in its closure. As such, I'd prefer for other bureaucrats to speak up but none have yet. But speaking in a general sense: As Joe Roe says, the process allows for non-bureaucrats to close obvious SNOW failures. While ToadetteEdit said they weren't withdrawing yet, the outcome of the RfA was not in doubt given the feedback presented and RfAs have been closed early in the past even when the candidate hasn't yet wanted to withdraw. Eventually, people start opposing because the candidate hasn't yet withdrawn.

Once this particular RfA had been closed, there was no need to re-open. The reopen, plus the addition and subsequent revert of the courtesy blank without consulting ToadetteEdit either way, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Why everyone skipped the discussion phase before reverting each other is beyond me. ProcrastinatingReader wrote this kind message after closing the RfA, whereas everyone else reverted or added to the RfA post-revert without discussing anything. Acalamari 07:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have seen non-Crats do SNOW closes (not optimal but acceptable), but this was something different, particularly given the new rules on when voting would start. It seemed everyone was clustering to handle it, except the Crats. RFA is the domain of Crats, after all, and recent RFCs have indicated that the community wants Crats to be a little more proactive in clerking in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#May 2024

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

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

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

   Last logged admin action: July 2020

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. Mets501 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: September 2017

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrat (Deskana)

Deskana (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 · te)}

For total inactivity in excess of one year the bureaucrat access for Deskana will be removed. Thank you for your lengthy service Deskana! Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

SRP filed. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the bureaucrat flag per request at SRP; thanks for their service throughout the years. EPIC (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)