Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 5
CHU reqs 20
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 10
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 03:29:16 on April 7, 2020, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
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

Bureaucrat activity April 2020[edit]

It appears to that 2 Crats had there last activity in April 2017 and further Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report needs an update and they need to be notified.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll start it up (working on it at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report/scratch). — xaosflux Talk 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I've made a new version of Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity/report, and will send out notifications. — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, you forgot to change the name on Bibliomaniac15's page when you (presumably) copied and pasted. Useight (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, along with link format error. — xaosflux Talk 15:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your prompt action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while, but it seems like I'll be a little more active these days. Slowly working my way back into the groove of things. Thanks Xaosflux and Useight! bibliomaniac15 05:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You're now an active bureaucrat again! :) Acalamari 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back Bibliomaniac15, good to see you around again! — xaosflux Talk 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Auspicious! –xenotalk 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Should meta renames count as bureaucrat activity anymore?[edit]

In processing the section above, for at least one person the only recent activity was in the "responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer". Historically, renames were the duty of crats, but that was changed many years ago. Should this type of activity still qualify as "bureaucrat activity" for the purpose of inactivity tracking? — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No, given that global renamership has its own process of removal for inactivity. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd lean yes - in part because bureaucrats still have the 'final say' on local WP:USURP requests: As the guidelines employed here pre-date global renaming, if there is any dispute as to whether a particular request qualifies for usurpation the request should be referred to local bureaucrats, especially if the case would not otherwise qualify for usurpation under the global process.xenotalk 14:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ...and per NOTPROCESS, etc., they've done something that looks cratish, so call it cratish, and thereby keep a crat, albeit not a very active one :) ——SN54129 14:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It was historically a crat thing and was never not specially made exclusive from the crat mandate, hence, why not. But otherwise, reasonably anyone who has made no related right-related log action in over three years has no use for the right. --qedk (t c) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What xeno said. Dennis Brown - 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • What Dennis Brown said. SilkTork (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't get the rush to de-crat people. Obviously, completely inactive users don't need the tools, but does it really matter if an active editor who rarely uses the tools has the 'bureaucrat' flag? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It is up to the community what they want, though, given that the crat tools are not often used these days, the image of a number of crats racing to use the tool on one of the few tasks open simply in order to qualify as being active is not endearing. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Participating in discussions here at BN count as "activity" so it's not hard to do that once every 3 years... — xaosflux Talk 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It's almost impossible not to meet the activity requirements if one wants to (and the requirements were drafted to that end). I'd point out that the present case also had dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrat activity in December 2019, so it's not like they're hanging on by a thread. –xenotalk 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It is very liberal and there is a crat whose last log entry is in 2008 and meet crat activity requirements. (Was notified this month).Apart from this one issue which was raised,I do not think there is any other issue. It was raised during this discussion as the crat had not used bureaucrat permissions for a while and was on the top of the list of admins. . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this the criteria: [1] - it includes "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks", which does seem a liberal and dignified criterion. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
SilkTork: Yes, that is the safe harbour criterion I was alluding to. –xenotalk 11:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Seeing that Crats require the highest acceptance percentage from the community, more than admin, and certainly more than Arbs, I think the community has the highest level of trust, thus the most liberal requirements makes sense. I would rather see a trustworthy Crat that isn't very active, than one that does things only to meet a quota. Dennis Brown - 00:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)