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	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Voorts	63	1	4	98	Open	21:06, 8 November 2024	6 days, 3 hours	no	report

It is 17:12:24 on November 2, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Gentle nudge

There are some older requests at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple that could use a second look from a crat or a clerk. I've tried to do the clear ones as they come in, but some seem like they could have an unclear meaning or backstory. No rush, but thanks in advance. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My review, I hope it helps:

~~HalcyonDays11 → Mayfair14, Cignorm → chhapariaanurag~~ are requests in response to a concern posted on their talk pages (HalcyonDays11 is blocked as {{usernameblock}}). Edits indicate a conflict of interest but that doesn't prevent a rename. Maybe just a message to Chhapariaanurag about real name.
~~Maxfordhamllp → RotundaWIKI~~, company name. The new name doesn't denote any type of authority, so it's seems fine to me.
~~Rwsmithco → RubeSmithCanaryOwnder~~, same as above but their only edit has been to insert a link to their website (it has been reverted since), so I think they're less likely to be editing constructively. Maybe we could ask them to acknowledge WP:COI, and wait to see if there's any response from them.
~~Elementalwiki → VisiPrisma~~, target user was created yesterday (May 13); I'll leave a message to confirm if they are the same user. The target name is peculiar but apart from being a type of chair I don't see anything promotional, and the user's contributions are totally unrelated.
Usnames → USNamesLori, user was unblocked to request that particular target name, and they have declared that they mean to edit according to policy. As the unblocking admin stated there may be differing views on whether the new name is appropriate or not.
Booth Transport → Lindsay Booth, user has been working in the article about Lindsay Booth, founder of Booth Transport Ltd., so both names were inappropriate. I left them a message and they have placed a new request, Booth Transport → BoothD. I think it still hints heavily to the company's name, but it's a crat's call.
~~Blackabyss221 → Count of Tuscany~~, no problem that I can see. I think the title doesn't exist nowadays, and it might be a reference to Dream Theater's Black Clouds & Silver Linings. User's contributions are vast and constructive.

Overall I think that most of them are good to go. I don't see any particularly troubling backstory, rather the usual case of users with an inappropriate username (and a COI) that were asked to request a username change, and did so — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did some, but some I want a second opinion on because I've been doing a lot of these and want more views beside my echo chamber. Also, why aren't you a crat yet? MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment :). Maybe in time I'll go through the process, but not soon — Frankie (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the "Usnames" and "Booth Transport" editors need to pick a name completely different than their companies or groups. I will be back helping a lot more with 'crat tasks after the first week of June. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If "Lindsay Booth" is the user's name, I see no reason why they shouldn't edit under that name. The COI issue can be dealt with separately. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with WJB. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a conversation with User:Usnames inviting them to choose another name, but they declined. Upon their request I've reviewed previous discussions regarding this, in particular the fairly recent case of User:Mark at Alcoa (links [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]), and I think there is a consensus that the main concerns regarding a username are if it is the company's name alone (as covered by WP:ORGNAME) and whether it represents a group account, and that other concerns such as advertising are to be handled separately. The user only made one edit before being blocked, which was to insert a link to their website, but they have now stated that they plan to edit constructively. Regarding User:Booth Transport I left them a note looking for clarification, but they haven't answered yet — Frankie (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective on the process of removal of inactive administrators

Last year, I logged into Wikipedia to make an edit, and saw that my administrator privileges had been removed. It felt almost like a punch in the face. But I understood the logic behind it--even though I would check my talk page once or twice month, I hadn't edited in a long time. But it left a bitter taste in my mouth any time I thought about making an edit or even donating during a fundraiser, and I never came back.

I wasn't going to cause any drama, or black out my user page or anything. I just didn't come back. But earlier this year, I got an e-mail about a survey about a worsening problem of inactive administrators (I have no idea if the survey was legitimate or not) and it made me wonder if you all knew how these actions were perceived...and as a man on the outside, I figured I'd give you my perspective.

I joined Wikipedia and became an administrator when I was in medical school. I stayed pretty active throughout residency and into becoming an attending physician. I worked on a mixture of article writing and administrative tasks, and I think I was well regarded for the quality of my writing and how I dealt with problematic users. I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and the Collaboration of the Fortnight (later week, now month).

Positive interactions with colleagues and appreciation of the Wikipedia community were major motivators for me. Even during periods where my clinical practice has been very busy, I would still try to pop back in once I had more time. But when I logged in and saw User:RL0919's message, it felt like going somewhere I thought I'd been welcome, and finding they'd changed the locks specifically for me. Especially since no one had bothered to ask me if I was still around. I was checking my talk page at least once a month, and checking e-mail multiple times a day. It would have taken someone less than a minute to just ask me before summarily suspending my privileges.

Even though User:RL0919's message was careful to state that the suspension was procedural only, I knew that even if I requested to be reinstated, this involuntary suspension would always be on my log, a record tainted. Adding insult was this edit to my user page by User:MZMcBride. The action and edit summary ("not an admin") were correct, but it made it sound like I had falsely claimed to be an administrator. [Edit: It's not my intention to imply anything negative about these users — I believe they both acted correctly and according to policy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia has a surplus of article writers and administrators and it's not worth it to coddle and soothe the ones you don't need anymore. I recognize that most of them are probably not coming back and that it would take a lot of time in aggregate to be more tactful. But I'm sure there are others like me. For a man who's been a member for six years, a hiatus of a year isn't unthinkable. You have Wikipedians who are professionals, who may have extremely busy careers, and yet be extremely valuable contributors. Consider treating them with a little more tact. I am gratified to see that you're now informing administrators prior to involuntarily removing their privileges. This belated decision is one I strongly support, and that's the main reason I'm writing to you today. I'm sure it takes significant time and effort both to contact the administrators and to ensure that everyone's been contacted before you remove their privileges. But I'm very glad you're doing it. Had such a system been in place last year, I would probably still be a part of this project.

Thanks for all you do. I'm writing this because I want this project to continue to thrive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were offended because adminship is not automatically for-life even if you're inactive? Please, this is silly. The locks weren't changed at all, you're free to edit as everybody else, and you can request your +sysop bit at any time with one simple edit. I fail to see where the problem is. Adminship is not a right or a crown, it's simply a set of buttons. If you don't use them for a long time, they get removed, but you're free to request them and you can get them back almost immediately. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that your last logged admin action dates back from 2008, and you've done 1 edit or so in the last two years. Please, remember that +sysop is not a big deal, it's not a crown or a priviledge. It's a couple of buttons you get to use. And you come off the wrong way by starting to list that you founded Wikiproject X and Y, it clearly has no relevance to the matter at hand. I fail to see what there was to ask you, you don't use something, it gets removed and if you feel the need to use it again, you simply come here and ask for it. I really don't see where the big deal is. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Snowolf, I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I wasn't offended, or angry. If I were, perhaps I would have posted angry messages, or placed large messages on my user page about quitting Wikipedia, or so on. I didn't get mad, I just never came back. I obviously don't hold any ill will against anybody (and, for the record, I still donate to Wikipedia). And I'm not writing this to express a grievance for myself. I don't need anything for myself. I just wanted you to get a sense of how seemingly minor actions or words can be perceived. There is a large group of Wikipedians who feel passionately about the project. These are people who may not always have time to contribute, but still try to come back because they care. Even when they're busy, they know the project is still there, and still hope to come back to it. Coming back and finding that privileges have been removed — privileges you hadn't expected to be removed, because that wasn't done before — can trigger surprising feelings. These are people with long-term dedication to Wikipedia, who may be here for years, and then away for years. I think I fit this group well, and I wanted to illustrate things from my perspective — that's why I discussed my contributions. It's not meant to imply that I should merit some special treatment — I'm not asking for anything for myself here. Now if I'm the only one like this, then fine. But my concern is that you will potentially lose good editors, because many of these people will not even come back to edit. It doesn't matter if they were actively blocking or protecting — the way you approach someone will affect if they end up eventually returning to the project or not. Since all of you are highly active members, it occurred to me that you may not realize how it feels to come back to an event like this and that with relatively simple steps, you can perhaps even encourage administrators to return to active contribution. I'm not asking you to do anything specific, just to keep these points in mind when you're reaching out to inactive contributors. It may seem silly to you, but I think this has the potential to affect long-term retention of valuable users. I'm not trying to criticize anyone, but I feel that sometimes an outside perspective can be insightful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you still haven't come back, except to make this complaint. And I fail to see why discovering that your admin "privileges" have been suspended – not removed, suspended – as a result of your very extended hiatus is such a big deal. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't perceive it as a complaint. The terminology I used is from the suspension notice on my talk page: "your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return." — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see the problem, but you are clearly complaining by saying things like "it left a bitter taste in my mouth any time I thought about making an edit". Would you have made any edits had that notice been placed on your page? Honestly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, yes. I had been toying with returning to more active editing for a while, and had I realized that my adminship was about to expire, I would certainly have logged in. I normally don't log in from work so as not to jeopardize security for my (former) administrator account, since I can't guarantee security from that computer. You're right; I suppose I am expressing dissatisfaction, and so that makes it a complaint. Look, you don't have to take any action or change any policy based on my words. but if a patient (or employee) were to leave my practice, I know I would appreciate knowing why. Maybe it's something I wouldn't have realized. Maybe other patients feel the same way. I don't necessarily have to change, but at least I'd appreciate knowing. I thought that you all might feel the same way. If you don't, that's fine; you can just ignore what I've written. You guys run the show here; how you deal with inactive editor/administrators is entirely up to you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't run anything here, but what I see very clearly is that you're not prepared to contribute unless you're an administrator, which I find rather sad. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Malleus. Of course it's more subtle than that. My contributions had stopped while I was still an administrator. And who knows? If I find more time, maybe I will resume active contributing (despite not being an administrator). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here. Per our Administrator policy section on inactivity, it's pretty clear that there should be at least two posts to the administrator's talk page as well as an email if possible. It does not appear that ANY of these steps were taken. That raises the question of how many other desysops were done outside of policy. It's very clear that this one was done without any of the required notices. An apology is owed to Knowledge Seeker. Risker (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Risker, if I recall correctly, when it was first decided to desysop after 1 year of inactivity, and the RFC was final, someone immediately asked a Steward on Meta to desysop a whole swath of them. People here complained at the time that there was no warning issued beforehand, and since then, the multiple emails and warnings have been sent out. As I recall, the first batch was really large. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Risker, this is very worrisome. Knowledge Seeker was one of our most nicest and respected administrators when I first joined Wikipedia back in 2005, and I'm glad to see his name popup again. He became inactive for reasons that is fully understandable, as many of the editors who were active back in 2005 became inactive because of real life and a whole new generation of Wikipedians came along. He should have been notified about his impending desysopping, and I don't know why they never did. This is basically a slap to the face for someone who was highly admired like him. An apology is owned to Knowledge Seeker, and hopefully Knowledge Seeker will find the time to start editing again, even in a limited capacity as the knowledge he brings to the project is invaluable. Secret ^account 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the imperative to treat long-inactive administrators with kid gloves? Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledge Seeker, your desysop without notification was a mistake and a majority of the community are regretful that it happened. When this new rule was first implemented, about 200 admins were desysoped without sending the proper notifications. Relevant discussion at this noticeboard are here and at meta are here. This was regretful and thankfully has since been corrected. We're sorry you were one of the 200 that this happened to. If you would like your admin bit back, you can leave a note here. 64.40.57.13 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was definitely not done according to policy and that involved mistakes from multiple people. It's natural that some people would be upset by a sudden change in their user role with no advanced warning, which is why the policy that was approved (and which I supported) included a requirement for prior notice. But it was done and it had to be dealt with. My sig ended up on the notices because I volunteered to perform the after-the-fact notifications. Everyone who has contacted me about it since, including Knowledge Seeker, has been very reasonable about the whole thing, and I don't see any reason to give him flack for bringing it up. This isn't about "admin for life" status (which I think should be done away with, for whatever that opinion is worth); it's about treating people with a bit of respect when they have been valued contributors in the past and haven't done anything wrong. Yes, I know there are plenty of times when that doesn't happen, but I for one was not trying to contribute another negative instance. So definitely apologies are due to Knowledge Seeker for the unfortunate situation. --RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's complete bullshit. When pending changes was introduced last year the overwhelming majority of editors lost the right that they previously had to see their edits on the main page without being monitored. But nobody cared about that, because those editors weren't administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit the main page or pay attention to what goes on with it, but even assuming there was a problem with what was done there, I don't see how that changes this situation. The old saw about "two wrongs don't make a right" applies. --RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, and I wasn't talking about the main page, which regular editors have never been able to edit, I was talking about the main page for an article, rather than its talk page. A more apposite quote is "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors". Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean the trial that has been the subject of multiple RFCs involving hundreds of participants, and you're saying "nobody cared" what the effect on editors was. Got it, thanks for the insight. --RL0919 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean; I'm always amazed at how many refuse to see what's staring them in the face. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge Seeker, this all boils down to one question: would you like your admin bit back? If so, just say the word and we'd be happy to return it. As far as I can tell, there's no valid reason to not return the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also boils down to the fact that a consensus quickly emerged that the way you were desysopped was not optimal and shouldn't happen again, so our community agrees with the basic point you came here to make. Apologies that you were one of the guinea pigs of the first batch. --08:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

It's an interesting exercise to copy this discussion into a text editor and alternately highlight all the contributions of each individual editor; it really highlights their overall approach to interacting with other users. I think I'll join (thankfully the majority) in saying: sorry Knowledge Seeker, we did not handle your inactivity as well as we should have, and have with subsequent editors; and although the issues you raise have subsequently been corrected, thank you for reminding us that we should always seek the full facts of an issue rather than jump to conclusions. I won't join the editor whose quotation from a philosopher who argued for reason and wisdom in leadership rather than rhetoric and persuasion, demonstrates precisely that by negative example. Happy‑melon 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KS, we are sorry that the project did not handle the first round of desysoppings according to policy. We have since put in rather complex safeguards to prevent that from happening again. We did not intend to discourage you from editing and were acting at the instructions of the community who felt that inactive accounts with administrative permissions were an undesirable risk. We are more then happy to return the rights whenever you desire them.

MF, I agree that being an admin does not include the vesting of treatment with white gloves. I suspect though that my colleagues and my own responses in this thread are infused with the concept of editor retention. KS was once an active and valuable editor and admin who has since become inactive. While his feelings were hurt by the removal of admin rights and people can disagree over whether people should view admin rights in that manner, I do wish to retain him as a constructive editor and am willing to admit where the project failed by its own standards in handling his situation. MBisanz ^talk 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea from that the first round of desysoping was contrary to policy? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Removal_admin_bits_of_inactive_admins. The notification timings were not consistent with what was required by the desysopping policy. MBisanz ^talk 22:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I want to thank you all for chiming in. I know Snowolf and Malleus Fatuorum don't quite agree with me, but I'm glad they challenged me so I could at least try to explain. Nihonjoe, I'll gladly accept the administrator bit back, but that's not why I posted — I came here to change a process: to ensure that suspension of inactive administrators was being handled differently, to try to change it if it wasn't, and to reinforce it if it was. Those of you who may know me from before probably know that I rarely go into personal feelings like this, but I felt it was essential to describe since other editors may feel the same way. Fortunately RL0919 and MBisanz are more eloquent than I: It's not about power or privilege, or by babying editors, it's about respect and feeling welcome. It's about retaining good editors. It's not about being an administrator per se — imagine instead that the user pages of inactive users were deleted, with a notice to let an administrator know if it was wanted back. I would guess that some would feel snubbed, that they could easily have been contacted beforehand. Because in my opinion, asking beforehand is not the same thing at all as removing, then restoring if asked. I have to admit that I was a bit taken aback to see that out-of-policy desysopping was allowed to proceed. I fully understand that it could happen as a mistake, but back when I was more active on Wikipedia, if an administrator were desysopped (or a page protected, or a user blocked, etc), and it were discovered to be contrary to policy, it would have been immediately undone. It's hard to imagine Wikipedia has changed so much that it was thought acceptable to just leave it unless someone spoke up. Did no one think of reaching out to those users, explaining that there had been an error, and inviting them to return?

In any case, thank you all for your support — I didn't come expecting apology but it was certainly nice to feel this camaraderie, appreciation, and mutual respect again. Those are the qualities I always loved about Wikipedia. I'll hope to be around more often. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bit restored. Welcome back. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-sysop please

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your service. It looks like you're taking a break. We'll welcome you back when it's finished. --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]