Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 1 December 2022 (→‎Removal of admin permissions (GlassCobra): done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    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 11
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 19:42:34 on April 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Resysop request (Eddie891)

    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.


    Eddie891 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)
    Hi, I was de-sysop'ed upon request about a month ago. While I'm not interested in going into great detail about my personal life, I have been going through some mental issues regarding depression and pretty serious suicidal ideation. I requested de-adminship in the throes of that as a way of both cutting myself off from things I enjoyed and ensuring that I did not do something with the tools that I regretted.
    I have been working to address those issues and think I'm in a much better (though still not perfect) place right now on the balance. I do feel ready to request the toolset again and hopefully become somewhat (re)involved with the community I have grown to appreciate so much. I don't think this would constitute a resignation under a cloud, and I don't think anything major has changed that would stand in the way of this request, but respect the communities judgment on both counts. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to hear you are feeling a bit better. I don't see any issues - regular 24 hour hold for comments. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Admitenttly im a bit hesitant because they are in the middle of some personal issues and regaining his tools might worsen his condition,i would much rather prefer a level-headed admin but i am open to being subject to other opinions--85.99.22.160 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's irrelevant to the decision here. In principle we know nothing about the private lives or situations of our editors, and they have no bearing on decisions made on-wiki. Eddie will be judged by their contributions here, and the fact that they've chosen to divulge the health issues they've been facing does not change that. Wishing you all the best and glad you're feeling somewhat better, @Eddie891:.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In principle we know nothing until someone elects to tell us. There is nothing in the rules to inhibit the return of the tools, though it is appropriate to take greater care in some situations, such as when a user tells us they were concerned they may misuse the tools, and are "still not perfect". Personally, I would have liked a bit more discussion with Eddie to find out how secure they are (I did email them yesterday, though they have not responded). In situations like this, the return of the tools could aid someone's recovery, and I hope that is the case here. I echo Amakuru's sentiment, and wish Eddie all the best. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to go into greater depth over email, but just a note that I do feel capable of acting on-wiki in as level headed a manner as ever. And I would expect my actions to be held to the same standard as any other user, so my contributions will hopefully reflect this. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eddie and I have spoken over email, and I am confident they will continue to use the tools in a responsible manner. That they had the courage and good sense to hand them in when they were in crisis is a strong indicator that Eddie can be trusted. I will repeat what I have said previously, that I respect every admin who has the good sense to hand in the tools when they are under stress in any way. And we don't need to know the reasons. SilkTork (talk) 18:24, 27 November 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.

    Suspension of admin permissions (Alex.muller)

    Alex.muller (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)

    Hi there - unfortunately I don't have time to be involved in the project at the moment. Following WP:INACTIVITY please feel free to remove my admin permissions. Thanks! Alex Muller 09:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done that, thanks for all you've done as an admin. Hope we see you back again at some point in the future. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Job Done
    Awarded to Alex Muller for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact for Alex: It looks like the above request was your 11,111th edit. As much as I hope you have time for Wikipedia again in the future, kudos on stepping away in style. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Andrew Yong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: February 2017
    2. Dbenbenn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: July 2011
    3. DESiegel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: November 2021
    4. Xdamr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
      Last admin log: May 2015
    xaosflux Talk 00:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice - large number of pending admin removals for next month

    Due to the new admin requirements, there are a very large number of admins listed at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2023. This was expected, but can be quite striking to see. If anyone sees any thing wrong with the reporting, please bring it up sooner than later. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 00:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is rather striking to see a list that long, but it really drives home the point of the new rule: having that many admins who are not actively engaged with the community is not a good thing, as we've seen again and again. That's not to say anyone on that list is a problem, rather that none of them are a problem yet. The lowest numbers on there are two admins who have made seven edits in the last five years, and some that have not used admin tools in over a decade. One thing that did jump out at me is Xdamr, who is already listed in the above section for removal this month. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox thanks for the note, should fall off during the next bot run - will watch for it. — xaosflux Talk 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done This was resolved during the next bot update. — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the headsup. For those of us who've been around a while it's an extraordinary list, and not just because of the length. 131? That more than decimates the admin corps... BusterD (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of doing this is that these folks already are not admins. What it does is make itr clearer how many admins there actually are. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite correct. I was bemoaning the number despite my qualification. My first admin coach is on the list and several editors who were important influences. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always sad to see recognizable names getting desysopped due to inactivity, but it's worth keeping in perspective that this administrative "culling" was not merely "expected", but was actually carefully calculated by the architect of the proposal, Worm That Turned. IIRC, Worm made it clear that based on his statistical analysis, he believed that the list could and should be longer without it negatively affecting the project, but that he was choosing to put forward a very conservative proposal that had the highest chance of passing, rather than trying to get the activity requirements to where they should actually be. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Swarm, you give me too much credit. It is terribly sad to see so many names on the list, but I am glad to see it's about a 1/3 less than it was in March, where we could have lost nearly 200 admins. That implies that about 60 odd admins have come towards re-entering the community and that's fantastic news. WormTT(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sort of sad to see so many names on that list that I remember as very active at one time. Of course, I've had my low activity spells as well (just 17 edits in all of 2017), but I came back. Donald Albury 02:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In your lowest 5-year period (2013-2017), you made 837 edits. That's more than 8 times as many as would be required to not get desysopped under these rules, and I would argue that factor matters. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three on the list are still active around the movement, which is good (the developer folks I could identify, Tim, Aaron, and Hashar). I daresay they're being useful still. Izno (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the names on the list should be considered "not useful", and may well be significantly involved elsewhere in the movement, which is great. However, if they're not active in en.wp, they shouldn't be holding on to the admin toolset, inflating the stats and giving people a false sense of security. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if we are looking at this as losing administrators, we are wrong. If you aren't making edits and not doing any administrative actions, you are an admin in name only. It might be sad to see users that were active/well respected over five years ago, but it's not like the editors cannot become good editors again if they wanted too. It does feel like we are looking at a series of users that inflating our overall number of sysops, but obviously there's a lot more to do than be an admin - so we don't need to be fretting about losing respected editors. Things will even out shortly after this mass exodus. I'd be happy to support or nominate an admin that lost the toolset due to inactivity if they wanted to run again. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of admin permissions (Pathoschild)

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

    Hi! Feel free to remove my admin permissions per the new inactivity rules. I'm still around for Synchbot, but I'm no longer active as an admin. —Pathoschild (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Thank you for your long service, Pathoschild. Acalamari 02:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for helping us get where we are, Pathoschild. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Job Done
    Awarded to Pathoschild for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspension of admin privs - Nancy

    Nancy (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)
    Hi there - with regret I find that (not so) recent changes in my life mean that I no longer have the time to contribute to the project as an editor let alone as an admin. It has been some years (a pedant may point out that it has been a decade) since I was active on a daily basis; writing articles, deleting articles and all points in between. I find therefore that I must reluctantly request the suspension of my admin access per WP:INACTIVITY
    It was great fun and tremendously fulfilling to have been a part of the project, especially in the early days, and I hope the door can remain open for a return at some point.
    Many thanks and kindest regards, Nancy (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thank you for your service, and resigning the bit with decorum. I've given you rollbacker rights, which you had previously, let me know if you want this removed also. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nancy (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Job Done
    Awarded to Nancy for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of admin permissions (GlassCobra)

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

    Hi all, received the notification that my activity is not sufficient to keep admin permissions. Completely understand this policy and can unfortunately confirm that I no longer have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the project - we can go ahead and remove my tools. It has been a true pleasure to be involved with this effort over the years, and I will reach out should I find that I can return on a more consistent basis in the future. (EDIT: Would be great to keep rollback permissions if possible, I do still plan to fight vandalism when possible and this would be helpful.) GlassCobra 13:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, with rollback enabled. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]