Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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.

Hello. On the basis that I haven't been sufficiently active for a while, please could I voluntarily ask for my Administrator rights to be removed? Whouk (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · · · · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)} Thanks, Whouk (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Done

Done, and thanks for all the admin stuff you did. Would you like to keep rollback or any other specific rights? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Greetings. It's time for me to give up admin privileges. I would like to retain rollback, if possible.

As requested, Sethant (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · · · · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

-- Sethant (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Done. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Recall check-in RFC was recently closed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in. Significantly: There is consensus for the development of a different petition process, consensus for changes on how re-RFA works, and (provided that the different petition process that will be developed is similar to the current petition process) there is consensus for increasing the number of required signatures and consensus for shortening the petition process. The "required 25 signatures within 30 days" rule for closing a petition does not seem to work now for establishing a precondition to desysop, because it lacks the legitimacy of community consensus, since, according to the RfC, as closed, the community at large wants something else—at the very least, more signatures in a shorter period. (Or a "different petition process", which could work significantly differently.) As it is currently impossible to determine the exact required number and the exact maximum period, any petition cannot be properly closed as passed, since any such close of a petition would be arbitrary and unfair. And, consequently, it would seem that any admin should not be desysopped before the relevant community decisions about the process are made. —Alalch E. 02:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Rather than waste breath at this time hashing out the where this leaves us, I will advise there is a thread to the contrary (not that I'm advocating either way at this point) on the closers talkpage. @Dr vulpes: just so you know where traffic comes from if it comes. I will comment at a later time with my thoughts. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Alalch E., take a look at my talk page there are other folks who have opinions that you might find valuable.

Thank you for the heads up @AmandaNP.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

It's also worth mentioning that the RfC reiterated that there is consensus against abolishing the admin recall process, which should not be overruled due to some sort of bureaucratic limbo. Further discussion is at WT:RECALL#Recall check-in RFC was recently closed. – bradv 16:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

• If recall is de facto abolished against the clear consensus pointed to by Bradv, I promise that I will file and support a motion to desysop anyone who has a petition that meets the 25 signatures in 30 days bar until the next RfC on the topic is closed. I don't know if there will be 7 other votes for it, but you have at least one to make sure it has teeth. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply
• I've just commented in the discussion linked by Bradv, and won't repeat myself here. It would be helpful if this discussion were all in one place. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC) Reply
• Dr. Vulpes has clarified that the RfC didn't suspend the existing process and it remains in effect. Courtesy ping to @Alalch E., Bradv, Guerillero, Newyorkbrad, and AmandaNP:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC) Reply
• This was a terrible close. A majority said things were fine the way they sit. Yet somehow we get to the conclusion that there is a definite consensus that the process must be shorter AND with more signatures. Uh, no, that's not what the majority of us saying "things are fine" were indicating by ignoring the other 11,000 proposals tagged on. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

  The best place to overturn an RfC is WP:AN, but I'd like to wait a little longer for Dr vulpes to either retract the close or to explicitly decline doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

  Dr vulpes has now agreed to retract the closure and I wasn't aware they'd get notified about this ping before being ready for returning to Wikipedia. My bad. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

hbdragon88 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · · · · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

voluntary resignation due to inactivity. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Hbdragon88 Done, thanks for your work as an administrator. Please let me (or some other admin/crat) know if there are any permissions you would like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. KarlDickman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · pagemoves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Aug 2019

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. (none)

• — xaosflux ^Talk 02:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC) Reply