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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 09:04:00 on July 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

WP:ELECTCOM2022 closure

Hello 'crats! Would an uninvolved 'crat please close WP:ELECTCOM2022, completing the creation of this year's election commission for the 2022 arbitration committee elections? Guidance on this can be found in WP:ACERULES, including notes at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Commissioner_reservist_selections. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 21:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though for the record the consensus here was much clearer than last year, and an admin closed that one. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac xaosflux needs to be moved to reservist and Cyberpower to commisoner; xaosflux explicitly requested to be marked as reservist if there were thar least three{other accepted candidates Special note to closing party: As there are many candidates, if accepted and there are at least 3 others accepted, I defer to other accepted members and prefer to be a reserve commissioner. — xaosflux Talk 22:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)) -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that,

Fixed. I will admit that I did not think to look at the candidate statements when evaluating the consensus. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IADMIN rights: Ragesoss

Ragesoss (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I'd like to get interface-admin rights again, as I have some updates to make to the Wiki Education guided tours. (I don't use them often, so they got removed for inactivity.) --ragesoss (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss, I assume that you have 2FA still enabled? Primefac (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac yes, I have 2FA enabled.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation due to unsupportive community and universally unpleasant interactions (Pratyeka)

Desysop request has been actioned. SilkTork (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2022 (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.

Pratyeka (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

19 year editor and admin here. Wikipedia used to be fun. You could add good content at your own pace and it would be well received. Today, in 2022, I hereby resign because every time I have added good content for the last few years I get hassled or it gets outright deleted. It seems nobody gives a damn. Wikipedia has clearly lost its way. Allied projects have the same problems. There are so many incidents at this point I can't see a future for me donating time here. At this point, I largely regret having done so. Furthermore, I believe the leadership is terrible, despite my best efforts voting for people it seems the whole thing is stuck in a quagmire of mis-conceived policies and self-service, meanwhile abusing volunteers. God only knows where the donation money goes, computers don't cost that much to run. There are also massive systemic abuse problems like paid editors (I recently had a great historic photo deleted by someone abusing copyright rules for a national government), policy quagmire, and a lack of experienced editors. There are lists of sources that are banned that basically disallow content from almost any online source in China, which means there's a widening cultural gap between China and the rest of the world. I used to believe Wikipedia was about sharing and making the world a better place. Now I believe it's worse than the rest of the media and systemic abuses rife. Some of the things I am proud of contributing include the Timeline of Buddhism, the Bitcoin article, early COVID statistics coverage in animated maps (many times daily), reports of corruption inside Wikimedia (nothing was done AFAIK), and positive support for new language Wikipedias at a Wiki conference. Things I can't stand: deletionists, over-use of policies and bureaucracy. I'd like to wish this place well but the English Wikipedia community clearly continues to decline. The degree of tolerability even for experienced editors is virtually zero. Wikipedia's replacement will probably be AI driven and superior. Goodbye. Thanks for the good times, old-school editors. To the abusers - you know who you are - you are destroying something that was once great. It will not recover. Should anyone take this seriously (hah, never!), here's a plan to restore positive direction. Step one: relax notability. Step two: stop flagging new content for deletion. Step three: Require that people make three articles for every one they flag. Step four: If foreign language wikipedias have coverage of something, allow it by default. BYE. prat (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for voicing your concerns but also for resigning your sysop permission. For the record, this is an under-a-cloud resignation after ADMINCOND concerns had been voiced at WP:ANI. It's a rather uncomplicated solution for these concerns I wish others had taken instead of letting things escalate to ArbCom. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cloud in my view, I just won't put up with it anymore. For the record, I'll bet nobody looks in to the deleted photo (abuse of copyright for censorship) or does anything about the constructive suggestions. prat (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, any existence of clouds is determined when and if a former administrator requests the bits back, not when they voluntarily give them up. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyeka, you may be correct about your predictions, but this is more likely because BN is not the place to make these proposals, nor a great place to try and overhaul the system. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I know you are planning on retiring, but should you change your mind and require any advanced permissions, please let us know (either here or at the relevant PERM board). Primefac (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the location to suggest overhaul changes to the inner-workings of Wikipedia, but thank you for notifying us of your intent to remove the bit. WP:VPP might be a better venue if you have any firm suggestions, although I can't say that the ANI thread makes great reading. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does this... (Only for admins)... Lourdes Lourdes 08:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's... a rather inappropriate use of RD, actually. This is not the venue to deal with that, but I will be asking JM to revert that action. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Post-close edit, but I don't want this to be misinterpreted in the future: the RD I mention was not performed by the OP.[reply]

I hope that we don't start a habit of digging up conversations from years ago when editors retire and administrators resign their tools. Let them be. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2022 (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.

Admin reinstatement for ClockworkSoul

ClockworkSoul (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello. In these parts I go by the name ClockworkSoul. I've been a Wikipedian for more than 18 years, and was previously an administrator. However, I've been effectively inactive for a number of years, and my adminship was suspended for that reason. Now I'd like very much to return to Wikipedia, and am requesting administrator reinstatement. Thank you. – Clockwork Soul 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be ineligible for reinstatement as an admin given that your last admin action was in 2010 and you have a more-than-two-year gap in activity between December 2014 and December 2016. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship for the requirements. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClockworkSoul! Great to hear from you. I'd love to give you your tool kit back, unfortunately there has been a tightening of the rules since you were desysopped, and since you've not used your admin tools for over five years (see Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration_of_adminship), you'll need to go via RfA in order to get your tools back. SilkTork (talk)

Hi! I remember you! That seems like a pretty arbitrary rule. I wonder what its motivation is? Well, I guess I'll have to run the gauntlet again. One the the things I've observed that has made me want to return is the really burdensome bureaucracy that's crept into Wikipedia. I've heard complaints from would-be users about being bitten for (well-intentioned) minor transgressions (like trying to create an article). Having experienced more than one example of that on my return, I'm eager to be back at the reins. – Clockwork Soul 18:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who helped tighten the activity requirements I guess I can reply to this. A great many problems have been caused by admins who went entirely inactive for long periods of time, then simply came back and started using admin tools again without taking the time to re-familiarize themselves with current practices and policies. A lot has changed in the 12 years since you last used your admin tools, maybe some of it not for the better, but the activity requirements are there to reduce drama and biting of new users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair, and makes total sense. I appreciate the explanation :) – Clockwork Soul 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClockworkSoul - you won't remember me, as I wasn't here when you were previously an admin (I joined in 2017, so take my point of view maybe with a pinch of salt). I share grievances any time someone mentions biting new users, (and potentially returning users such as yourself) and that is damaging to the project. The activity requirements are here to prevent users who are not up to date with the current policies from using advanced permissions and potentially causing users more stress or editing against policy or consensus. I would welcome anyone who was willing to put in good work to avoid angst for new users, but would also request that someone looking to do so had spent a reasonable amount of time making edits to modern Wikipedia before a potential RfA. A lot has changed in the last 10-15 years, and it's not unfair for the community to want to vet any new admin or those returning to the tools. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you. I'm pretty excited to get involved in editor retention efforts. I founded the Kindness Campaign way back when (which has sadly become mostly inactive since), and my wish to encourage kindness and respect hasn't dwindled since that time. – Clockwork Soul 21:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ClockworkSoul:, the WP:Teahouse is now the location for supporting new editors. Step hen 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]