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 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	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 06:45:52 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Temporary Interface Editors Nominated

Hello 'crats. I've started a mostly ad-hoc discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated due to the scheduled access change next week and the lack of a new community policy being born from the consensus process yet. I'm recusing myself due to nominating everyone. Now the second problem, in the absence of policy actually directing us to process these requests are there any bureaucrats that would be willing to close and process access grants assuming the specific nominees gain support? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As can I, if 28bytes is busy... Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thirded --

old fashioned! 15:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you all, the ad-hoc minimum discussion time has been reached, please review if you think there is consensus to act (including that a sufficient overall participation level was met). The general community proposal seems to be getting closer to something actionable, but I suspect there may be one or two other temporaries that may be needed (such as the normal maintainers of MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js while it still has to be done this way) that could go through the same abbreviated but temporary process. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that Geonotice, I wonder if one could build a template that hosts the "safe" portions of the JavaScript while leaving the sensitive ones on the now higher-protected page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: see MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-geonotice-core.js#convert_data_to_json?, I think there is a technical issue blocking this right now, but that it should be able to be moved to JSON (which is not restricted to IA's). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so enacted. Worm^TT(talk) 17:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interface Administrator Request

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T200176

Hello, I do a lot of CSD and occasionally encounter userspace css/js pages wherein the creator has requested deletion. As the new change no longer allows me to edit/delete these pages, I would like to request the interface administrator permission so I can continue to carry out these duties. Thanks, FASTILY 04:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soon deleting user CSS/JS pages will not require interface admin. See phab:T200176. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I wasn't aware of that. If this fix is going soon live then I won't need this permission. -FASTILY 04:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a few recent examples of deletions you've made that would have required iadmin? SQL ^{Query me!} 04:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to U1 User:Mandarax/w.js just now. I'm not sure how to pull up a list of previous *.js/*.css pages I've deleted using any existing special page. Can try running a query on labs later when/if I have time. -FASTILY 04:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sudo}} on their associated talk pages with your CSD note. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note, phab:T200176 appears to be ready, just waiting for train to deliver it. This will restore delete access to sysops for user js/css pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to MediaWiki 1.32/wmf.19 this is going live today. Please consider this

Request withdrawn -FASTILY 04:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, well Thursday. The deployment train starts on Tuesdays, but en.wp is the last station on Thursdays. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: this access should now be working, please let us know if you have any problems. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and will do! -FASTILY 03:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

View delete problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202989

I just tried to view User:Mandarax/w.js, and see this:

Permission error

You do not have permission to view a page's deleted history, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Oversighters, Researchers, Checkusers.

This could be confusing, as I am an admin. Can the permission error be updated to say:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Interface administrators, Oversighters, ~~Researchers~~, Checkusers.

I'm assuming that researchers shouldn't have this permission either. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a bug/something that should be fixed, since there wouldn't be anything sensitive in viewing the deleted history of a JS file Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: this isn't really a crat issue, but let me check on this for you - I think its a bug. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: and @Wbm1058: I've opened phab:T202989 regarding this problem. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, as an administrator, oversighter and checkuser.... I can't see it either. Looks like it's interface admins only. Worm^TT(talk) 13:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfA awaiting closure

This has been closed by 28bytes. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:30, 28 August 2018 (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.

I don't think keeping this one open for extra time, so more can pile on, is helpful. Can this one get a quick "mercy close", please? Everything that needs to be said has already been said. wbm1058 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2018 (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.

My RfA

NOPE

Asked and answered, crats do not have to chat to close an RFA in the discretionary zone and there seems to be no outstanding reason for one in this case.

talk) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (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.

My RfA closed today at 64%. At the scheduled closing time the vote was 65% in my favour but shortly after that time additional voting moved it to 64% thus depriving me of the opportunity of a "crat chat". In the oppose votes there were factual inaccuracies where I was criticised for articles I hadn't edited, images I hadn't uploaded and the formatting of references carried out by other people. There was plenty of valid criticism too or it would have been higher than 65%. I am no wiki-lawyer and I don't want to sound like this is a case of sour grapes but it is a little frustrating not to be granted the opportunity of an additional overview by bureaucrats due to voting that occurred after the scheduled close. This will probably be my only application for admin so I want to be sure of the result. I realise a "crat chat" is not automatic but I should be grateful if one would be granted. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-crat comment: As of 11:23 [1], the tally is 143/78/23, so s% is 143/(143+78)=64.7%, not above 65%. So I endorse this decision Hhkohh (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philafrenzy. I went over to assess the consensus, and saw a clear lack of consensus to promote, so would not have instigated a crat chat, even if 5-10 more people had supported. The 65%-75% area does not automatically require a crat chat, nor does less than 65% automatically stop one from happening - a crat chat is meant for situations where consensus is not clear, based on the rationales provided. What's more, the 7 day period is a minimum, not an absolute. I'm afraid I agree with the outcome here - but I will say, on a personal note, I would like to see you as an admin one day and I think you will do a fine job, so please do try again in a few months. Worm^TT(talk) 15:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we do our bureaucrats a disservice when we casually refer to the 65%-75% as "crat chat zone" instead of "discretionary." As WTT says, a crat chat is a bit of an ad hoc creation when a closing bureaucrat has difficulty discerning consensus. The confusion only exists because we have largely established cutoff zones at RfA, so most of the time we expect discretion to be used is where a crat chat might reasonably appear. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I participated in the RfA, so won't speak to the merits of the discussion, however as far as the closing process goes: RfA's remain open for comments until they are closed, there is not a mandatory maximum discussion period, this is similar to almost all other consensus building discussions such as AFDs/RFCs. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: You were criticized for images (plural) you didn't upload? I don't see that anywhere. In my oppose !vote, I cited four files, three of which you were the original uploader for and one of which someone else uploaded but you retouched and uploaded an edited version of it. I don't see any other !votes that mentioned specific images. I clearly said that you "retouched" the one file that you weren't the original uploader for. You were not criticized for "images [you] hadn't uploaded". --B (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, oppose #70 contained criticism for pages Philafrenzy didn't edit. Though I have no doubt that any factual inaccuracies in RfA comments were taken into consideration by the closing crat. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, you made the statement that "it's somewhat frustrating that I would probably have had this additional consideration at 65%". I don't know where you got the impression that a 65%="crat chat likely", but it doesn't. Secondly, I don't know where you got the impression that !votes cast after the scheduled closing time shouldn't count, but they do. Thirdly, I don't know where you get the impression that a 64% is such a close call that you need to split hairs over that single percentage point, but it's not. Lastly, you still had significant support, and as long as you do not continue to repeat the mistakes that led to the opposes, you could probably easily sail through an RfA in the future with my full confidence and support. Whether or not it was intended, this apparent refusal to simply respect the opposition to your RfA and instead split hairs over the close will likely come up as an obstacle to that. Swarm ♠ 18:08, 28 August 2018 (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.

Interface administrator user rights request

Hi there! I'm here to request the 'interface administrator' user rights so that I can continue to do what I've done before, which is to assist users with their .js and .css code within their user space (in fact, I have a message on my user talk page here with an active request for help regarding their .js file and scripts). I won't be able to continue assisting users with their code without the permissions. I'm a software engineer, have designed my own versions of scripts within my user space, and I completely know and understand the sensitivity of these user rights and the impact that making careless edits and mistakes can cause to Wikipedia; I have a strong password, use 2FA, and promise to use the rights with care at all times. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to respond. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Hi @Oshwah: we don't yet have a community approved mandate to process this request, although you sound like a fine candidate. You (and anyone following this) can help get a proposal moved to production at: Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators - and the sooner the better! Should that process continue to delay, I (and presumably the other 'crats who commented above) would consider temporary grants that followed the approximate consensus driven support mechanism as seen at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Stop-gap_users_nominated (especially that it is open for at least a few days, allows for revocations for cause, has sufficient participation, and has sufficient advertisement). Additionally, that same sort of mechanism could be used to empower us crats to do general temporary grants in the interim. I know this process can be annoying, and thank you for wanting to keep helping! If you have any edits that are needed, please drop an edit request on the associated talk page and it will be given priority. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux - Ah, poo... no worries. The guidelines and mandates regarding the granting of this user right will be better defined in time. I'll definitely do my due diligence and help on the discussion page as you suggested. Thanks for the response and for letting me know :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side question @
✉ 02:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Salvidrim: there is not a custom report (yet) and until we get more editors it's probably not a great idea to get split them off as there won't be as many eyes if they are getting ignored. These will show up on User:AnomieBOT/PERTable, you can see an example of when I tested it here: Special:PermaLink/856765977. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Xaosflux: (or anyone, not picking on Xf!) Just out of my own absolutely idle curiousity (seeing admins not able to request the right becasue it doesn't officially exist, right?), then how comes a few already do hold it? Beta testing or something? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: the user right exists; a formal method of requesting it does not. ansh 666 17:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a quick poll to grant temporary access to a couple uncontroversial candidates until the formal application process is figured out. Those people will need to reapply once the formal process is in place. See
ZettaComposer (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) @Serial Number 54129: A consensus was reached to go ahead and grant the right to 6 users who frequently edit JS/CSS pages for 3 months, until we do figure out a formal method of requesting the right. See here. I personally would support giving this right to both Oshwah and Deryck.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: if there is a second batch of editors that would like to go through the same "quick poll" process, it can be done. Using the same constraints and methods of the precedent setting first batch should be sufficient. If it was opened today it could be done in 3 to 4 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone,
for indulging me. I assumed something had happeed and I just hadn't noticed...*shock horror* it had and I hadn't :) hope it all goes well, it sounds—well—most original. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Request from Deryck

Request is in process with the stop-gap method at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#IAdmin_temporary_access_request_for_User:Deryck_Chan now. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:20, 31 August 2018 (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.

Hello, I am writing to request the interface administrator right, which I have lost due to the recent change. I am dropping a line here per the current text on WP:Interface administrators: "Bureaucrats may grant interface administrator access to any current administrator requesting access at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. Requests must remain open for a minimum of 24 hours for community review." I am an administrator on WP:Geonotice and also have extensive experience in editing the MediaWiki namespace through interface and gadget localization work at the Cantonese Wikipedia. Deryck C. 13:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: That's a proposed policy, not an actual one. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done there is no policy that allows us to grant this access yet, see all the notes on the request above. If the process will be delayed you could start another list of stop-gap users with essentially the same accepted temporary process used for the last list. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:09, 30 August 2018 (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.

Interface Admin temp requests, part 2

Hi crats, I've offered to issue temporary interface admin access with similar conditions to the first batch of temporary requests as seen here: Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Additional_temporary_access_requests. I know this is rather unusual, and if you think this is bad for the project please let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being a bit confused about this whole process. Where was the community consensus to remove these rights from the normal administrator user group? If there was no such consensus, shouldn't there have to be consensus to deny the right to administrators rather than to grant it? The status quo is for an administrator to have access to these rights. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Looks like this page explains a bit of this. I also managed to find this discussion, which occurred after the user group was created to explain the reasoning behind its creation, as well as a short discussion trying to determine how the user right should be granted, which closed as "Commenters here should discuss at WT:Interface administrators."--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(

✉ 00:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) My point stands. The previous status quo was that all administrators had access to this user right. Until consensus determines otherwise, any administrator who requests the right should receive it. There is no community consensus to remove these rights from administrators. I can understand granting it on a temporary basis if it seems likely a consensus that would be more restrictive is likely to emerge in the near-term, but that should be the only restriction until the community decides otherwise. I'm not arguing against this user right, Salvidrim!. I'm just saying that, until community consensus determines administrators should not have access to a right they previously held for years upon request, no policy, guideline, or consensus allows such restrictions. This is what happened when edit filter manager was introduced. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Rob brings this out, it does seem odd that this ability was removed as an office/tech action without involving community opinion. Lourdes 01:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that bit's fine. They do have jurisdiction over security issues. The bit that I'm less fine with is the community portion. Until there's consensus otherwise, the status quo is that administrators should have access to these rights. That would involve granting upon request. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: It wasn't a Foundation project so it definitely wasn't an "office action". It was a "tech action" insofar as any of the hundreds of changes to MediaWiki each week are "tech actions", yes. Regarding "community opinion", there were announcements, calls for input, resulting discussions, and so on. I suggest reading m:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS for more information. --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Rob here: until community consensus creates a different process, individual volunteers should be allowed to regain the same level of permissions by default, just like an admin who temporarily relinquished their bit because e.g. they were travelling to a sensitive country, and requested a restoration of rights on their return.

The other problem with what happened was that individual users were not notified of their loss of rights nor the process to keep it before it happened. When the inactivity-desysop rule was first introduced, every admin who would be desysopped due to inactivity was sent a talk page message, with clear instructions on how to keep it (make a constructive edit and drop the crat a message). In contrast, this change was only advertised on the Admin's Newsletter and Signpost for less than two months before it happened, so most admins weren't aware of it. The lack of a rule on how to keep / gain the Interface Admin right before Admins were stripped of the JS/CSS edit permissions then added to all this and caused a big bummer. Deryck C. 10:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth on en.wb, although comparatively speaking it's a small project, we decided to give the right to any admin who requested it based on the same rationale as you are using here

talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC).[reply

]

From a 'crat standpoint, we're mostly just waiting for the community to ratify a process, any process. It could be "shall grant on demand to any administrator", it could be "week long discussion like RfA with 90%+ support" or anything in between. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as in tune and active as I used to be due to work, but I have to agree with Rob. This seems to be overkill to remove our access to pages we previously had access to. If it is done for security, then that is saying we can't trust admin in general. I can understand limiting access to the site wide CSS, but I can't access or delete individual user js or css files either, which it would seem, is a task that admin were selected to do. Can't we differentiate the true site wide js and css files and individual user files? There is virtually zero risk in an admin having access to those. And no, I don't remember being notified about this, and should have since it affects my tool set. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @
WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It wasn't when I wrote that, but glad to see they fixed that. It isn't something we do daily, but it is a valid use of the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it still doesn't work for me. [2], I get a permission error when trying to view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown, The ability to view deleted pages wasn't actually added with that (only the ability to delete pages so that things like copyright violations and such can be deleted). But that should be fixed once phab:T202989 is resolved Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you Galobtter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of thought this process to come up with a process for granting the interfaceadmin rights was going to be a trainwreck from the beginning. We've had years and MBs of discussions about RFA and especially de-sysop processes and little has changed. --Rs chen 7754 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit removal.

Per this indefensible bit of piss poor administration please remove my bit as my administrative contributions are clearly neither valued nor respected.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As someone who has resigned the bit in anger once or twice, can I ask, @

Spartaz: that you remove this request, and repost if you feel the same after the weekend? Your fundamental assumption - that your admin contributions aren't valued or respected - is incorrect, so the request is based on flawed reasoning. We have a whole bunch of dispute resolution processes; let's follow one of those instead. If you still want to resign next week, boy do I ever understand the feeling. But if you don't, it's just easier all around not to resign in the first place. Said Floquenbeam, from experience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have put my 2c on ANI re: the deletion review and the TL:DR version is I agree with you and have said why. I appreciate that there are days when nothing I do seems to go right, but walking away from it doesn't really solve anything. Sleep on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just do not do it (irrespectively of the DRV).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but please remove it.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Done reluctantly. Enjoy your time away and feel free to stop back here to get your bit back when you're feeling better. Your contributions are indeed valued. 28bytes (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fwiw I was angry when I made the request but I'm calm now and was when I reaffirmed the request. I'm clear that I don't need the bit. I only use it for closing AFDs and I'm going to step away from that because Wikipedia is supposed to be a hobby and relaxing and I don't feel relaxed if stupid shit is making me angry. So, giving the bit away makes sense. At some point I may change my mind and be available to help out again but this isn't the project I joined in 2006 anymore.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#September_2018

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#September_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Bgwhite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
J Greb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
HorsePunchKid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Winhunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rami R (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]