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.

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	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 00:16:28 on August 9, 2026, according to the server's time and date.

Intadmin for 0xDeadbeef

0xDeadbeef (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te · taiv)}

Hi all, per User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Linking GitHub to MediaWiki, linking from Git to Wikipedia is a common pain point, so I've started a BRFA that would make it easier. This bot requires interface admin permissions, so I am required to have interface admin permissions too.

I have a decent amount of knowledge about JS/CSS, but I'll be very careful when it comes to editing site-wide JS/CSS or gadgets with a lot of users. I don't expect to edit very high risk pages much, and should I do it I will be very very careful. Thank you for your consideration. beef [talk] 05:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Trusted user. Even if the bot doesn't get consensus, I have no problems with deadbeef being an interface administrator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Easily a trustworthy user. I echo what Novem said above, I fully trust Deadbeef with intadmin, and have no concerns about their clearly demonstrated technical abilities. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Duh. Qualified doesn't even begin to describe it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 11:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Desysop request (Gimmetrow)

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

I had thought I had the time to be more active, but it didn't happen, and I won't have time in the near future. Gimmetrow 17:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally acknowledging this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good timing :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, despite filing Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow: I wish you the best, and thank you for the amount of work you have put in over the last 20 years. As Floq said on your talk page, your work is not diminished just because it was bunched up in the first 10 years of your editing career. Best regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• We appear to be in an era where the unwritten standards for admin activity are higher than the written standards. This is unhealthy. If people don't think that the minimum expectations for high enough, then it is better to seek consensus to raise the standards rather than pick off admins who barely meet the standards. I've had a couple of speeding fines in recent years, admittedly on both occasions I was doing a few miles an hour above the published speed limit. If those cameras had been set to fine me for doing 29 MPH in a 30 MPH I'd have been rightly pissed, especially if that was done by people who thought it easier to recalibrate the speed camera rather than get the rules changed to lower the advertised speed limit. ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I concur, I don't necessarily think that either of the admins should have remained admins but the correct response is to update existing rules instead of picking off people to de-admin one by one. The closest comparison is the recall process acting as a Sword of Damocles over mostly inactive admins, which I think incentivizes better gaming than actually keeping around active admins. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I do not necessarily disagree with the above; maybe recall should be modified so that it can only be used for conduct issues, and/or have "inactivity" marked as an invalid reason to raise the issue? I know that is a matter for the AElect talk page to discuss, but this should probably be done sooner rather than later as I suspect otherwise this will not be at all the last "nearly inactive admin" recall petition. Primefac (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  In both cases, gaming of the inactivity rules was cited as the objection, not the inactivity itself. WP:GAME is a policy. I don't see how we could exclude petitions from citing it as basis for a recall. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  That is an incorrect assessment - because very apparently the notion of gaming the inactivity rules only applies because they were not under the ambit of the inactivity rules in the first place, so that cannot be a cause to object. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  You're describing gaming: skirting the letter of a policy to violate its spirit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)