Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 07:14:43 on June 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

User:NoSeptember/crat stats

Majorly kindly began the Dec-Jan update of the page, but is a little swamped by work off-wiki.

If anyone would like to finish that update before the end of this month, they'd earn my admiration. Especially if they can do it without swearing even once. (I'll accept any such claim on trust) --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have the time to do it, it's just really tedious. My own data on RFAs is hardly complete as it is. MZMcBride simplified the table down a bit though, so it might be a little easier. I don't know how WJBscribe managed to do it all the time :) Majorly talk 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I make no promises to do anything without swearing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is from Special:Log/rights it seems like it would be fairly trivial to automate. Please don't tell me somebody manually goes through passed RFAs to figure this out. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my thought as well, though I don't want to volunteer to write the script. Dragons flight (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not difficult to go through the log. It's difficult updating the table because it's so large, and there's so many numbers to consider. Majorly talk 00:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you three and X! put your heads together, I can't imagine it would be other than a success. --Dweller (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interested in opinions

...at WT:RFA#Doing RFA twice, 3 months apart (on the assumption that no one who is still sane is watchlisting WT:RFA). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the 'crats have wt:rfa on their watch list---at least the ones who have any interest in the subject.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a bureaucrat issue. Majorly talk 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CHU question

Are users generally allowed to change names while under a topic ban? I couldn't find an answer to this at WP:CHU (although there may of course be a page of "crat instructions" I'm not seeing). I ask because I am currently monitoring an editor who's under just such a ban, and who has now asked for help in getting a new user name. This is a valuable editor who makes good contributions outside this one problematic subject area, and I don't want them to be tempted to cause disruption under a new name. Thanks in advance for any help or advice you can offer. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If this user has made a CHU request, please provide under the name change request a brief description of the ban. The betterment and security of Wikipedia supersede a CHU request, but there are instances of privacy and RTV that can come up. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now done so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and just make sure the topic ban moves with them. - Taxman ^Talk 22:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Crat opinion sought

Wikipedia:Changing_username#Jaakovs_.E2.86.92_MASQUERAID. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU archiving

The Bot archiving is a little puzzling. I think they're ignoring  Not done tags which are preceded by : or *. Am I right? --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to some particular cases please? --Chris 12:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure of myself, but the page seems regularly to be clogged with unarchived items, and I unscientifically observed that they tend to be ones with punctuation preceding them. Thinking further, I believe there are several Bots that tidy the page and I now wonder if some of the Bots cope with it and others don't, making it take longer for them to be archived...? --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mine is the only bot that archives WP:CHU(SUL) (Cobi's archives WP:CHU/U). Not done requests are archived 48 hours after the last timestamp on the request. See the brfa for more info --Chris 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, move along nothing to see here. <blushes> Ahem. Sorry! --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag question

Do we have a preference between Special:Makebot and Special:Userrights? I don't do bot stuff that often, so I can never remember; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags doesn't say which is preferred, so I thought I'd ask those that are better versed in the ways of bot flagging... EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From a technical side of things Special:Userrights is preferred as Special:Makebot is deprecated and will be removed some time in the future --Chris 10:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Special:Makebot be removed from Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags, then? Also, maybe a note to the MediaWiki message at the top of Makebot could be added to say "This is deprecated, please use Special:Userrights instead." Although, since I would hope that all Bureaucrats are watching this noticeboard, and they're the only ones who can even see Makebot, I'm guessing that all of the relevant people are already going to know that. Also, a technical question from a technical newbie: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Flags says that using Makebot "results in bot flaggings being logged separately from other user rights changes"; does this mean that Makebot lists it in the "Bot status" log, and Userrights lists it the "User rights" log?--Aervanath (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. Probably someone should change MediaWiki:Makebot-header to include something similar to MediaWiki:Makesysoptext. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would personally prefer Makebot to be used, so the user rights log isn't clogged up, but that's just me personally :) Majorly talk 13:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you, the separate log is valuable. I suppose though I don't really care what tool I use to do it if the log could be separate or at least searched reliably. Some of the toolserver tools designed to be catch-alls aren't really. - Taxman ^Talk 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Makebot puts a log entry into the "Bot status" log, which Userrights puts it in the "User rights" log. 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that Makebot is technically obsolete per mw:Extension:MakeBot and given that its author has been inactive for sometime, it would be best to have the sysadmins merge the Bot logs with Userrights (like they did when Makesysop was merged with Userrights, and then turn off the Makebot function. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Happy-melon added a deprecation notice last July, which Wbscribe reverted in August, being (as most of us) unaware of its impending doom. I've reverted to Happy-melon's version. Is the merger of the Makebot log to the Userrights log something that should be requested on bugzilla? Or is there some other avenue?--Aervanath (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugzilla would be the right method, User:MaxSem had a script to do this before he retired, but I don't know if anyone else has a copy. MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, this was just want I was looking for. I've removed Makebot from the 'crat page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Log merger requested: bugzilla:17272--Aervanath (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RHMED reinstating votes from an indef blocked troll

RHMED has now twice reverted both my and Black Kite's indenting of a indeffed troll's !vote ([1][2]) on the basis that a 'crat didn't indent the vote. Hoping the latest revert by Garion96 sticks, but if it doesn't, could a crat hop along to Root's RfA and indent it? Thanks. — neuro^(talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Funny how the supporters only indented an oppose !vote and not a similar one in the support section. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

inactive

I'm going to be inactive from now on, so I guess that means one less bureaucrat around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)