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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

bureaucratship update

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

It is 09:30:27 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Staxringold (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)}

Per the relevant

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of inactivity notices for the new activity criterion are planned for 1 October. I would like the crats to provide input on the notice text. I have put a quick draft below for the first notice based on {{inactive admin}}. Please feel free to edit it directly or make a template as you see fit. I'll also need the ones for the second notice and annual reminder. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]
Established [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators|policy]] provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#time:F Y|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 1 {{CURRENTYEAR}}+3 months}}. {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{crat|}}}|As bureaucrat inactivity requirements are [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_47#Request_for_comment_on_Bureaucrat_activity_requirements|tied to administrator activity]], failure to reach acceptable activity levels will also result in the loss of your bureaucrat permissions.}}

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators]]. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard|the bureaucrats' noticeboard]].

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. ~~~~

Looks good to me. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I think it's noble to ask for people to give the tools up voluntarily, I feel like most will just wait out the period - this message doesn't give a date for that to happen. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, though I feel like if it is posted on 1 October "the next three months" indicates Oct-Dec, and inactivity is generally done at the beginning of the month (i.e. January). I'm not opposed to adding some sort of {{CURRENTDATE}}+3 trigger in there, but I don't really see it as necessary. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me, it's a bit of a difficult ask to request users to increase activity but not give them a deadline. "Within the next three months" seems quite soft, rather than a "you'll lose access by X month". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so change "return to the required activity level within the next three months" to "return to the required activity level by <month>"? I guess that would work (and alleviates one of the concerns I had about being too specific about the dates). Primefac (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't think we gain anything by being super specific, but having a month would make it a bit easier, especially as we are targetting these at users who may spend months away from the site. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Replaced with code that will subst in the fourth month. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get people complaining that they thought January included January. Better to say "start of January" of just within three months of the date of this message, which is clear enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, thanks @JJMC89 Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a bureaucrat version as well, although that could be just case of replacing administrative with bureaucrat and updating the links. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick reminder for me - the crat activity requirements are the same as for admins, no? Presumably once someone looses the mop, they would also lose cratship? In that case it wouldn't need specifying. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as of April. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably once someone looses the mop, they would also lose cratship?". There is no rule that says you need to have admin permissions if you have the bureaucrat permissions, so I think there would still be a need to notify about the bureaucrat permissions as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of April (see my link) bureaucrat inactivity is tied to admin inactivity, so if a 'crat loses the mop because of inactivity, they will also be de-cratted. Otherwise your statement is correct, as Xeno demonstrated a few years ago.

That being said (sorry for the double post), it wouldn't be that hard to add a |crat=yes option, which would tack on "and your status as a bureaucrat" or similar to the notice. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really think of a situation where one would be suitable for crat, but not adminship (and was probably why this was implemented across both groups). A non-admin promoting an admin wouldn't sit well with the community. However, if it's a simple fix, there's no real reason to not put administrative permissions "and bureaucrat status". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would now be removed from both roles due to inactivity but they would still need to be notified that they will loose it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to tweak the wording; I was trying to be as succinct as possible, mainly to avoid placing a ton of #if statements everywhere. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. SilkTork (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above time formula currently evaluates to January 2023. Based on prior discussion, my understanding is that the activity requirements themselves are effective on January 1, 2023, meaning desysops begin that day. Were we to send notifications on the October 1, this would evaluate to February 2023, which is either a bug, or a mis-specified requirement. :) Izno (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bug because I'm a bit of a numpty and tested the code in my sandbox forgetting that it's still September. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:D

Izno (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this is per individual not per account, so if someone has a declared alt account that brings them over the threshold could we give them the opportunity to link that account? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous inactivity has considered it per individual. See Nyttend's removal a few times from the inactive list because he was last active on his backup account. I don't think the amendment that was made altered that part of tracking. Izno (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "reengage" better than "re-engage"? Useight (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reëngage? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to re-engage per Useight. Most common spelling. SilkTork (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I have created {{inactive admin 2}} based on the above. If anyone would like to start the annual reminder notice, that would be helpful. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been slightly following the kick-off process for this, are we intending to have these notifications bot-managed? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:INACTIVE. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nevermind, the bot did get these sent. @JJMC89: is there report the bot will maintain like it does for the traditional inactives? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I've been thinking about the best way to handle it that accommodate both criteria. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic 00:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahoerstemeier (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)}

The subject line more or less says it all. This action was taken by Useight per this discussion. I thought it best to announce it here because most desysoppings are mentioned on this page and perhaps some Wikipedians who have been around for a while might recall Ahoerstemeier's username, as I do. Condolences should go on his talk page. Graham87 10:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Astronautics~enwiki (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Nov 2016

2. SB Johnny (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: May 2020

3. GraemeL (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Oct 2013

4. Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin log: Mar 2016

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting to see how GraemeL kept removing the messages from his user talk page that he was about to be desysopped due to inactivity over the course of several years [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but only just stopped doing that this year. I wonder why... 109.235.247.80 (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe just gave up. There is a small collections of admins that make only a token edit a year, however the new admin activity policy will be addressing these soon. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • . Well, here's the thing Xasoflux. Maybe there's a small collection of admins who feel failed by the project. Run off, because of abuse, hate, relentlessly receiving emails to the point you block the wp email forwarder. I went to pretty much entirely IP editing because of the hate from several people (that Malleus account's followers, the climate change chap who was an admin and just spent his time protecting his articles, the awful Jehochman or whatever he was called account that was entirely PR for him, Majorly or whatever he was called and his long term grudge, the people that hated on Keeper76 and sent him violent abuse. I could go on about the long, long Wikipedia history). I've logged back in to make admin/editor actions of which a flat f'ing zero have been contested. Your contention (accurate as it may be) glosses over the hard reality of tenured admins. We don't keep the bit because of self importance. We keep it because we can be useful. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if an admin isn't doing anything except reverting the inactivity notices on his talk page, he's about as useful as a fresh, Russian conscript. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not making a judgement about GraemeL, just an observation. It is certainly preferable that absent constructive editors return to be constructive again. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (Fixed error in my comment: 14:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  GraemeL was the first person to give me a barnstar, and gave me support when I was a newbie and needed it. It is possible I wouldn't have stayed on Wikipedia if it hadn't been for the support and guidance that GraemeL gave me. He was a good Wikipedian and shouldn't be subjected to smeers and sneers now that his time has come to an end. It can sometimes take a while for long standing Wikipedians to let go - that is not something we want; however, we should have some respect and sympathy for the pioneers on this project who have served it well but are not sure that their time is over. SilkTork (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at WT:RFA has the potential to significantly change our workflow and remit. I have already voiced my opinions, and am stepping back now, but I feel that more 'crat opinions could be useful. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marianocecowski (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)}

As suggested in the messages being sent to inactive administrators, and because I am not ready to re-engage in any meaningful way as an administrator, I kindly request my administrator permissions to be removed. Thank you. Mariano(t/c) 10:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. If you need any permissions please let us know. ExCon will be conferred automatically when you make your next edit. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Job Done
		Awarded to Marianocecowski for good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]