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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 12:49:13 on June 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Requesting resysop

Boing! said Zebedee (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested desysop in January, intending to spend some time doing content work. I've barely done any of that and hadn't really wanted to come back to admin just yet, but there appears to be yet another coordinated attack on some Indian caste articles and on the people who work on them, and the few admins in that area are getting a bit swamped. So, as more hands are needed, can I please have the admin bit back? (After the usual 24 hours, of course) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of any issues which would prevent this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yay! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries from my point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. MBisanz ^talk 23:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Got that twitch again...? Basket _Feudalist 20:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cratstats Bug

It was brought to my attention that cratstats was erroneously miscounting overdue RfBs, for any candidate that had an RfA. This problem has been resolved.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

SchuminWeb

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb#Temporary_injunction, could someone please carry out the desysop? NW (Talk) 03:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with my SUL

For a few months now logging into ENWP no longer logs me in to Commons and the others. If I log into Commons it logs me into Meta and the rest, just not ENWP. My accounts are still shown as linked. Could someone maybe unlink my accounts and then relink them, to hopefully fix the issue? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If MBisanz sees this, he might be able to help since he is a steward, but I believe you'll have better luck asking the stewards to look into this as there's not much the bureaucrats can do short of renaming you and un-renaming you, which I'm doubtful would help. 28bytes (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And if even the stewards can't figure it out, and the problem persists, you should probably file a bugzilla request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the technical backend that well, but there are two things I can do at Special:CentralAuth/JohnnyMrNinja. I can delete your SUL and let you re-create it to see if it works better. I can also unmerge your en.wiki account from the SUL and let you re-merge it. If I delete your SUL, you'll lose your SUL ID #26102 and get a new number of like #xxxxxxxxx, but that'll be the only change. If I unmerge your en.wiki account from your SUL, your home wiki will change from en.wiki to commons, but that'll be the only change and won't affect you logging in. My advice would be to first try the un-merge/re-merge and then the deletion, but I'll wait for you to tell me which you prefer or if you're just going to file a bugzilla. MBisanz ^talk 21:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a cookie issues to me. Try cleaning up all of your *.wikimedia.org and *.wikipedia.org cookies, and see that you don't have particular settings that might interfere. Also, does logging on en.wikipedia.org also log you on say, de.wikipedia.org? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, this is almost certainly the problem (a login for commons.wikimedia.org is working for *.wikimedia.org, but not *.wikipedia.org). All bureaucrats/stewards should be aware of this change in Firefox as it completely inhibits SUL. (Note that this has been the case for some time with Safari as well.) Cheers, — madman 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that is it exactly, thank you. Is there a bug filed for this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

RfA - Example

Maybe my humor button is broken tonight or the inmates have taken over, but I don't really see the point of the current RfA other than some form of mockery. Assuming it isn't just me, maybe a polite closing is in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm an idiot. I just noticed the date. I will admit, I fail to see the humor in vandalizing ourselves, but accept that I'm in the minority. Think I will just step out for a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just look at WP:MFD, then I'll feel like an idiot for starting (and kinda continuing) that. Dennis, you aren't the only one, I spent like 30 minutes investigating the fake ANI report... gwickwire^talk_editing 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And so it begins... does this mean I can blame my bot re-notifying everyone on the March 2013 report on an April Fool's joke rather than on a careless typo in my crontab? (Since fixed, by the way.) — madman 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • <3 Now I feel like a jerk for tricking Dennis.

  P.S. some of the opposes are pretty lacking in substance... maybe y'all should have a 'crat chat when it comes time to close the RfA? :D — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • No, no, no need to feel bad for fooling me, that was the idea, after all. I'm not into the April Fools jokes around here, but perhaps it is because I've been here for almost 7 years and have seen them all, and seldom do I see something truly "new". I don't have a problem with harmless fun (outside of WP:AN and WP:ANI), even if it isn't my cup of tea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting resysop after inactivity

I used to be an active sysop but stopped using Wikipedia many years ago when I became extremely busy with schoolwork. As per my user talk page, I was desysopped in 2011 for inactivity. I continued to edit Wikipedia occasionally as an anon, but since I haven't had time to devote to admin-type activities, I haven't been logged in for a while.

When I was first desysopped, I saw the notice yet decided not to act on it (that is, not to request a resysop) for the time being, since there was absolutely no incentive to act soon. I continued to check my user talk page sporadically, and the next time I checked, I saw that a change in policy had permanently removed my right to request a resysop!

I know that the current written policy says I need a new RfA, but I think it's unfair that I was given <30 days' notice about the policy change, particularly given that the constituents affected by the policy change are precisely those people who are unlikely to log in within 30 days. Is it possible to resysop me under the old (2012) rules, which would not require a new RfA? --Galwhaa 04:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-'crat comment) This clearly looks like a legit request, but you might want to add the obligatory "not an April Fool's joke" to this. Assuming this isn't just some very dry humor, in which case I've just placed myself in the same boat as Dennis in the above thread. ;) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I got an email regarding this a couple days ago and advised him to come here to discuss it, so I can verify it is not a joke. MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your edit history, and I'm sympathetic... but the community hasn't really left us with much leeway to bend the rules three months after the grace period expired. I'm not going to slap a "not done" on this, and will let other 'crats chime in, but unless I'm in the minority here I'm afraid I don't really see a way to stretch the grace period this far out. RfA is always an option (I know, they're not particularly fun), although I suspect you'll want to hold off on that while you get back into the swing of things; folks will want to first see some more editing time to reassure them that you're back to stay and have a good plan for how you intend to use the tools. 28bytes (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that you haven't logged in and edited since 2009 (other than your post here), and seeing as you were given 28 days notice, I don't see that any exceptions can be made. The community was pretty clear on this issue. If it had been just a few days after the grace period expired, I could see a possible exception being made, but not after three months. The advice given by 28bytes is good: spend a little time editing for a bit so you can get back into the swing of things, then put in a new RfA. I don't see anything particularly controversial in your history at first glance (I didn't do a super-intense review). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with 28bytes and Nihonjoe; it's a shame, but our hands are tied by policy on this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: if policy has been changed with regards to resysoping, why has the talk page notice not been updated to reflect this? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The policy hasn't changed for users who went inactive for one year and up to the third year. If you are inactive for one year, you are desysopped, and pending a 24-hour wait period, you can request it back (up until you've had three years of uninterrupted inactivity). Once they have made no edits or logs for three years, they are considered long-term inactive and fall under the lengthy inactivity policy, where they would require a new RFA. Since he's been gone since 2009, he's been gone well over the limit and falls under lengthy inactivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying the message should be updated so it makes that clear, so that another message doesn't need to be pasted in 2 years when it could have been mentioned the first time. The notice says they can ask for resysop, but it doesn't say that's a limited time offer, so why not say that and be done? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the notification being modified to say that we have the lengthy inactivity policy now as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, modify it to say that, and at 2 years 11 months of inactivity, add a final warning that they will not be able to request resysopping afterwards. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had updated the notification template, but apparently dropped a step somewhere. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I regretfully agree with my colleagues that the community made a crystal-clear policy that doesn't give us any discretion. Sorry. MBisanz ^talk 13:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with my fellow bureaucrats on this one. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#April 2013

The following can be desysopped today as inactive for over a year. (no, this isn't a joke thread).

• CJLL Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Linuxbeak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Ludraman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Luigi30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Zoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also removed Linuxbeak's bureaucrat right under the same provision using my steward access on Meta. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Linuxbeak from the table on WP:CRAT and updated {{Bureaucrat timeline}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy April Fools

I'd like to wish all the cats here a happy april fools. :-)—Cyberpower (竜龙) 11:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request founder flag

Hello cats! Bishzilla apparently already founder status.[1][2] Please activate founder flag! bishzilla _ROARR!! 19:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC).

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)