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 00:50:52 on June 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Clerking at WP:CHU/S

Hi guys! I'll be travelling for the next four days or so and will thus be unavailable to clerk over at CHU/S. An extra set or two of clerk eyes (bureaucratic or non-bureaucratic) would be welcome to hold down the fort and reduce Matt's workload. See you early next week. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I'll try to be more active. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for covering. Matt, I didn't figure it was possible for you to be more active, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I'm back to full activity. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Could one (or a few of you) good folks start that 24 hour clock thing and have a look around my history. Here was my "take em" request. Actually it was kinda nice to not have to worry about some things for a while, but I suppose it's better to be prepared than to pester other admins. I'm not sure what the current phrase is for it, but if anyone sees any "clouds" on the weather radar - feel free let me know. Now all that said:

• May I please have my tools back. Thank you for your consideration, and kind regards to all. — Ched :  ?  18:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Only just spotted this. Looks fine to me. OK in 24hrs if no dissent. Welcome back, Ched. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller. Noticing the section below and the rename issues; I did have a rename last year. The original RfA is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis if that's important. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Oh my God, not Ched Davis?! That's a different story! Controversy! Cloud! (Hi Ched welcome back to the 5 timers club) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ROTF ... thanks Floq. Yea, I guess being inconspicuous isn't exactly my strong suit eh? — Ched :  ?  21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ched is about as inconspicuous as a solar eclipse. PumpkinSky talk 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I thank you sir. — Ched :  ?  23:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Request consideration and advice regarding re-joining Wikipedia

Hello. I was an active administrator for a number of years, but retired my account in June 2009. I am now considering re-joining Wikipedia, and seek advice and consideration regarding again becoming an administrator. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently, consensus is that admins who have not edited in three years must undergo a full RfA to regain access to the administrative toolset. -- Avi (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been three years, though. (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

True, especially now that a new edit has been made. Looking through the logs [1][2], I can't find where you were ever an admin under this username. Have you been renamed? I can see where you were deleting pages, so you must have been at some point. Maybe I'm just tired and not searching correctly... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I found you listed here with a promotion date of June 22, 2006, and I see here that you renamed yourself to your current username at 19:21 on 9 August 2006. However, there is no entry for you here under your current username or your older username (the one mentioned in the log above). Also, I can't find a record of any entries on your user talk page prior to 04:29, 14 July 2006‎ when you created the page with the edit summary "copying talk page". Help me out here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mtz206. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thank you. That gives me the rest of what I was looking for. I'm wondering if it might be good to restore and merge the user talk history in order to avoid this problem in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to resysop and think that means the 24hr clock starts now, barring objection. You might want to peruse WP:UPDATE while you wait. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I am working through those policy change documents. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also concur as to a resysopping. Thanks everyone who did the legwork. MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights

Per this motion, please restore the sysop rights to User:Kevin. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done (X! · talk)  · @760  ·  17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Shirt RfA Closure

Resolved

 – RfA closed as successful --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Secret started this RfA early and WormTT reverted that closure because Shirt wasn't ready yet. However, when Shirt was ready, he reverted WormTT's revert which resulted in the closure date/time stamp being from the time of Secret's opening rather than the actual opening of the RFA. I fixed this mistake with the linked diff. Just a heads up.--v/r - TP 18:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And here I also corrected for my own mistake of adjusting the timezone.--v/r - TP 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hersfold's resignation

I think it would be remiss if we didn't formally note Hersfold's resignation of the tools and thank him for his thoughtful contributions. We don't have that many active Crats, and it's a shame to lose one. It's even more of a shame that we're losing one for such negative cause. Good luck to you, Hersfold. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• -- Avi (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Usurped account

Hi, I am posting here as advised by MBisanz via email, as my case is not a regular username change/usurpation request.

My account Crawler has been usurped [3], in what I believe might have been a mistake, and would like to appeal/ask you to reconsider.

Taken from the Additional guidelines for usurpation requests:

When usurping is probably inappropriate

Target account objects to usurpation.

--> I had no chance to object, as I did not get any email. Might be because email verification was not required years ago when I created my account, and I was never asked to do this, so the email was never verified. Notice was given on my Talk page, but this is not something an occasional user checks periodically. I am just a regular guy/user who is not superactive on Wikipedia, but occasionally I try to contribute and giveback if I can.

Target username has edits.

--> I have created and edited entries in the past.

Account requesting usurpation is not established.

--> The user requesting the usurpation did not have any contributions before, and in fact, he first requested to usurp the name "Veritas" [4], so there was no specific requirement (like SUL) for him to take Crawler as a username. Furthermore, the user has now been inactive for almost a year.

In summary I believe a mistake might have been made here. My username was taken by somebody who should not have been allowed to usurp it (and is not using it now), and I would like to get it back.

Thanks for your time. Crawler (usurped) (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts from me:

1. I think we made a mistake in usurping your account, and I apologise on behalf of us all. It's a good lesson learned.
2. Given point 1, above, I think re-usurping your account would be compounding the error with a new error, that equally is against our policies
3. Given 1 and 2, although I strongly sympathise with you and with your request, I think it'd be a bad idea to agree to a forcible usurpation
4. The best idea would be to politely ask the current Crawler to agree to change username.
5. Failing that, is there a chance you could consider coming up with another username that doesn't require us breaking policy once more?

Sorry, I know that's not your ideal response. --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dweller. Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but I would infuriated if I was given a response like that. You essentially just said, "oh we made a mistake and accidentally violated policy for forcibly usurping, would you mind choosing another username instead?" I would reply to that statement with a no and would demand my own username back. No prejudice to you Dweller, this is merely my opinion.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, since the 'crats, as Dweller puts it, made a mistake in usurping, they should undo the mistake by un-usurping, with a note to the user who would now be usurped (the current Crawler) through e-mail that their account was usurped accidentally, and it has been re-usurped due to inactivity. Fix the problem, don't ask the old Crawler to try to fix it themselves. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I directed him here because I didn't know how to handle it on my own, but first some thoughts:

1. There has never been a requirement that a user must actually be notified, just that the project make reasonable efforts to notify them of the usurp request through a talk page note and an email if they have one set.

2. I agree that the guidelines say if the account has edits, then it's inappropriate to usurp, but I've always read that with WP:CHU and WP:CHUU as significant edits, meaning that an inactive account with very few minor contributions can be usurped. As best as I could tell, none of his edits were significant in that they were five article edits to articles that had been substantially changed in the intervening six years.

3. The person requesting it lost the password to their original account that had 621 edits, so he was established enough to request a usurp, even under a new account.

4. Even if the usurp was a mistake, the new holder of the Crawler account owns the SUL to it and the rights to the name on 20+ other projects, so returning the en.wiki account to Crawler (usurped) would be an inappropriate invasion of his SUL claim. While his SUL claim has enwiki as his home wiki, he also owns the nlwiki version of Crawler, which predates the enwiki usurpation, so the SUL claim is independent of any error of the enwiki usurpation process.

For those reasons, I don't think the enwiki usurp should be undone. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RE #2. I think Matt uses a loose (weak) definition of "significant" and is too permissive of renames. I consider that any edit is significant if attribution is required. The user definitely had significant contributions. (my bias is that I dislike renames, and more so dislike forced renames of contributor accounts). As for "all the good names seem to be taken", this is a problem requiring a different solution. The original Crawler deserves the apology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it was probably too loose after reviewing the two articles he started and apologize for making that mistake, I just don't think it's a mistake that should be reverse at this point. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, mistakes can happen, however I truly appreciate your apology Dweller and MBisanz. I have given this some thought now and it's not worth making an issue out of this, I understand reversing this would create an even greater mess at this point, so let's leave it as it is. I appreciate all your efforts on behalf of Wikipedia so keep it up guys and let's not look back at this, no harm done. Crawler (usurped) (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding the error and, again, I apologize for it. MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Request return of my admin bit

I would like to request return of my bit. I will make sure I am conversant with current policies before using it. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back! --Rschen7754 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No issues here, I'd be fine after 24 hours. (X! · talk)  · @028  ·  23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)