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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Numberguy6	0	0	0	0	Open	01:36, 1 June 2024	5 days, 12 hours	no	report

It is 12:53:38 on May 26, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

New administrator inactivity requirements

Hello all. Please note that following the consensus established at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, an additional minimum activity requirement for administrators has been introduced: 100 edits within 5 years. Enforcement on this will begin in January 2023. This does not specifically apply to bureaucrats, but perhaps it should. There are currently crat+admins that would have admin removed if this were effective today - but would still be crats. Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see it applied to crat user right too - but the, I proposed the requirement in the first place. There is clear community consensus on it this for admins, so I struggle to see why we wouldn't apply at least the same for crats. Worm^TT(talk) 14:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should adopt it as an additional requirement to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it even suitable for a crat to not be an admin? If not, then the requirements are implied by proxy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski being an admin is not a polioy requirement to be crat. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it should but sadly I think it would take another RFC. I think whoever proposes new inactivity requirements should write bureaucrats into the initial proposal so we don't have these issues. --Rschen7754 18:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorta, the "administrator policy" is much firmer than the bureaucrat information page - so yes a discussion should be had, but I doubt it will be as attended for this matter. Wanted to drop this open for any feedback here first. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think any RFC on the subject should solidify the obvious, that a Crat must be an admin. If you lose the admin bit, you automatically lose the Crat bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not 100% obvious, since User:28bytes was a crat for quite a while without being an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Xeno is another example.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe giving up both bits should be obvious, and being able to restore the Crat bit using the same criteria as admin if they are given up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It would solve a lot of these problems and some WMF wikis do that. Though I think some RFCs here proposing that have failed. (Though I suppose one could try again, I don't think this inactivity RFC would have passed just a few years ago). --Rschen7754 00:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Being a Crat is not the same as being an Admin, so I'm not seeing that a requirement that if a user gives up the Admin tools they should also give up the Crat tools is appropriate. However, yes, the activity requirements should be at least the same, if not greater, for Crats. We need a RfC for this - it doesn't need to be well attended as it's common sense and uncontroversial; all that's needed is a consensus, which I'm sure it will get. User talk:Worm That Turned, as you started this, it would be appropriate if you finished it off; would you set up the RfC? SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If it really will be uncontroversial I will note that Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes doesn't require formal RfCs to change policy, though I certainly understand why one is desired here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a big advocate of being bold and moving forward, though on the question of removing Crat rights I think it would make sense to have a little more formality and community awareness than just a handful of us saying that we think it's a good idea. We could have the RfC on this page as a continuation of this discussion. I don't think that many people will get involved, but as long as it is advertised on Cent, then the community would have been alerted. If Worm hasn't started the RfC by tomorrow, then I'll set it up. SilkTork (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather away from my computer for the Easter weekend - happy to set on up when I get back, but also happy for you to go ahead and do one Worm^TT(talk) 08:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The email notifications for administrator inactivity are no longer needed. Should the email notifications for bureaucrat inactivity also be dropped? Could this be added as an option on the RFC? -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've created the RfC below. I've suggested that we stay in line with Administrator activity requirement for bureaucrats, which would include notification levels. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a list or count of the individuals affected? UninvitedCompany 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you sort this table by "100 edits go back to," it's everyone with that field in red. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Of these users, the only one who is a Bureaucrat is Cecropia. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There aren't enough bureaucrats to care about a rule for bureaucrat inactivity. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If the reasons behind this are what I think they are; we don't want important decisions to be taken by people who have drifted so far from the community that they are out of touch with things that have changed; or they have forgotten things they haven't been involved in for years; or their account has been compromised; Then I think it logical that the community would expect crats to be held to at least as high a standard as admins. Prior to the Universal Code of Conduct I'd also have argued that with a growing number of very elderly editors we also need to diplomatically retire admins and crats before dementia gets too bad, but obviously nowadays we are no longer allowed to use such arguments due to the mental bit of "without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities". ϢereSpielChequers 06:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• We could just say that the requirements for Crat are the same for admin, so as changes get made for admin, they automatically apply to crats. That is a pretty lenient set of requirements. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure about that, but that the new additional sysop inactivity rule also applies to crats should be easy enough. We already require crats to actually do a tiny bit of crating from time to time - we don't require admins to actually admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Notifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The RfC specified that all administrators be notified of the change which I'm happy to do via MMS. It also specifies proactive notice for people subject to the new requirement. Xaosflux are you able to incorporate that into the notification work you already do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: lets follow up at Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)/Request_for_comment_on_administrator_activity_requirements#Closing_-_anything_extra - because the closing didn't endorse everything that was discussed, only the threshold so far. We certainly will work it in to the bots though, lets just be very clear. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Desysop request (Kpjas)

Regrettably, I feel obliged to ask you for a voluntary desysop of my English Wikipedia account. I admit that for a quite a long time I have not been able to be stay active in this respect. I sincerely hope to be of use to the English Wikipedia community as my time allows. Kpjas (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. If there are any perms you need (PGM, rollback, etc) let us know. Primefac (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

For your past services, and for voluntarily requesting desysop, you are entitled to this award:

		Job Done
		For good services as an admin, and for resigning the tools in a noble manner. SilkTork (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done. SilkTork (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, thank you for all you have done in the past, and for being wise enough to know when to hand in the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on Bureaucrat activity requirements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the bureaucrat activity requirements be kept in line with the recently agreed administrator activity requirements? Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

As part of the recent administrator activity requirements change, it was raised that the list of administrators who would be affected by the change included at least one bureaucrat. Rather than derailing that discussion, a subsequent RfC was suggested, and this is that RfC.

It is proposed that the current text at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts is replaced with:

Current text
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are two separate activity requirements applicable to bureaucrat accounts: Bureaucrat accounts that have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (without any edits or other logged actions) may have their bureaucrat permissions removed. The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page and via email one month before the removal of permissions and again several days before the request is made. Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions. This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools. If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. If a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

There are two separate activity requirements applicable to bureaucrat accounts:

1. Bureaucrat accounts that do not meet the level of editing activity expected of administrators may have their bureaucrat permissions removed. The bureaucrat must be contacted on their user talk page in line with the procedures for administrators before the request is made. Should the bureaucrat remain inactive, another bureaucrat may request the procedural removal of permissions. This is not to be considered a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the tools. If an inactive bureaucrat returns to Wikipedia, they may request restoration of the permissions at the bureaucrats' noticeboard provided they have not been inactive from bureaucrat activity for three consecutive years.
2. Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. If a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity for over three years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.

Simply put - this RfC asks the question if you are not active enough to be an administrator, should you be a bureaucrat? There is no proposed change to the second requirement of bureaucrat inactivity.

Notes

Endorsement / Opposition

1. Support as proposer of this and administrator activity requirements. I considered adding the new 100 edits in 5 years requirement explicitly, but I thought that it would be far simpler and less... bureaucratic... to match the requirements to the administrator activity levels. I have no issue with an bureaucrat turning in the administrator bit and remaining a bureaucrat, however, when it comes to general activity levels, we should keep both in line and remove both user-rights at the same time. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

   Minor update, so that we only look at "editing" requirements.Xaosflux & Amorymeltzer, I hope that's not an issue for you? Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

   +1 — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

   Yeah, I think it's fine. I guess I was reading the original differently than Barkeep49, that it was explicitly using the sysop requirements (editing and sysop actions), not that it was replacing sysop with bureaucrat as appropriate. This is fine, I guess; it won't introduce any weirdness, at least. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

2. Support seems like a fine incremental step. I think we should probably also remove ... and by email ... from #2 while we're in here - as all of the other email notification requirements have been sunset in the last RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

   Good point - done. Worm^TT(talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

3. Reasonable alignment with what has been de facto expected for a long while. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
4. Support I like aligning the expectations of crats and admin in this way, especially because if the community decides to raise the level of editing required of admin in the future, it'll not require a seperate change for crats, while still allowing for a different level of "tool use" which recognized the differences in roles in that aspect. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
5. Support Of course Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
6. Support * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
7. Support - Very reasonable and in line with community expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
8. Support - of course, entirely sensible. firefly ( t · c ) 17:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
9. Support piling on to a good long-term resolution (including the "editing levels" bit) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
10. Support. I agree with Barkeep. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
11. Support. --Rschen7754 02:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
12. Support as a logical consequence of the change in admin requirements. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
13. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
14. Support. I think the activity requirements for these two roles should typically be aligned unless we add something that is very specific to one role or the other. --RL0919 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
15. Support - seems very suitable to align these permissions in this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
16. Support Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
17. Support - Donald Albury 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
18. Support - No brainer. Levivich 16:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
19. Support A bureaucrat is really just an administrator with the ability to make other users administrators and vice versa. Lumping the requirements together is really just a way of saying that bureaucrats are themselves administrators and should, at minimum, follow the same requirements as such.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
20. Support It just makes sense to have the same (or broadly similar) requirements for both. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
21. Oppose No where near sufficient a high bar. Not even close. How long before the next tiny increment? You're not bold enough. Far too timid. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Leaky caldron, do you want to have different editing requirements for admins and bureaucrats? If yes, what should the difference be and why? —Kusma (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Kusma, I am less concerned about equivalence than I am about both being far too low. By miles. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    Then you are participating in the wrong discussion. —Kusma (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Kusma, thanks for telling me where I can participate. I contributed to the Admin. discussion weeks ago. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    You're free to attempt a new RfC about the admin requirements, but in my view it is unlikely that there is much appetite for further tweaks before 2023, when the recently made changes will result in desysoppings (or renewed activity). —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

22. Oppose Just to be annoying, because I don't think the change to the admin criteria went nearly far enough. Feel free to ignore this irritated placeholder though. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    If "oppose" wins, the requirements for bureaucrat will become lower than those for adminship. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    If "oppose" wins, the status-quo will remain. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

23. Support - common sense solution under the current circumstances. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
24. Support It seems logical to have the same requirements for both, as the idea is to remain actively engaged. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
25. Support – a common-sense improvement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
26. Support -FASTILY 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
27. Support Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
28. Support. Seems reasonable. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
29. Support. Some semblance of activity is expected for people who held a position of power or authority. SunDawntalk 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
30. Support I like the incremental nature of these new policies. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
31. Support. Getting into WP:AVALANCHE territory. HouseBlaster^talk 17:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
32. Support Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
33. Support – Bureaucrats should be held to at least the same inactivity standards as regular sysops. Clovermoss (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
34. Support we crats need to keep in touch with the norms of the community, if anything that's more subject to change than many areas where admins might be active. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
35. Support - common sense to put the two in line with each other. Retswerb (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
36. Support - kcowolf (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am supportive of the idea of tying the crat and admin editing levels together. Given the radically different amount of actions, especially logged actions, available to crats and admins I'm a bit reluctant to just completely tie it together. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be interested in hearing some alternative wording - because you are right if logged actions become a feature of Admin requirements. Worm^TT(talk) 15:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe just change 1 to "Bureaucrat accounts that do not meet the editing level of activity expected of administrators"? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  I like that, thanks Barkeep. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Should that be changed to, "level of editing activity"? The adjective placed next to the noun it's modifying makes it easier to parse IMO. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pfft, easy. "Bureaucrats who cease to be administrators for any reason will also have their bureaucrat permissions removed." Simple, future-proofs us against the next incremental admin requirement once it becomes clear how ineffective the recent bump was, and as an added bonus prevents symbolic resignation of admin while retaining bureaucrat. —Cryptic 06:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I considered that, but personally, I don't have an issue with crat's not being admins. The crat role is simply that of a discussion closer and button pusher - you don't need to be an admin for that. Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Granted, but realistically speaking, will the community really ever grant cratship to someone who has not gone through RfA? Alternatively, we could just adopt the es-wiki model and abolish the distinction between crats and admins, then we would not need specific crat activity requirements. Regards SoWhy 09:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Crats can grant permissions requiring 2FA without sufficient software checks yet. I would like to skip opening that up from 15 people to 1100 people - however many are removed after January 1, 2023. ES.WP is particularly one of the wikis where it's a problem from a security standpoint. Izno (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Izno we've asked! T265726 is open on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Can we please not have an RFC at a noticeboard. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Given the low amount of traffic this noticeboard gets, I'm inclined to just go with it as a logical place to hold it. That way anyone remotely interested in Crats is likely to see it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• While incorporating the activity requirements for admins, this would not incorporate the requirement of intent to return to activity when requesting the perm back. Should it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I intend to look at Resysop over the coming months, I'm not sure that we should be focussing on Resysop (or ReCrat) in this discussion. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is on T:CENT, I don't think we need to go to WP:WLN unless it stops snowing above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it did stop snowing I would suggest it doesn't need WLN and that CENT is sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I see this as a fairly uncontroversial, so probably doesn't need more than CENT. Worm^TT(talk) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wish WP was a place where something obviously good and common sense like this could... just be done, and if anyone objected, then we could have a long vote. But I acknowledge that WP isn't such a place anymore. I guess what I'm really wishing is that is was 2005 all over again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I floated that very idea but think Silk/WTT were probably sensible to do it this way (and in fitting with the small c conservative nature of cratting). And I'll somewhat controversially say I am largely grateful it's not 2005 all over again as the drama we have now seems much better than the regular bouts of wheel warring that 2005 saw. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  "You must have a formal RfC before you edit the PAG" is my least favourite part of 2020s Wikipedia. Anyway, no need to vote on this while there is no serious objection. —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Our PAGs suck, and it's because of 20 years of bold editing. Levivich 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's because anyone has been bold. If someone disagrees with a bold edit, then it should get reverted and discussed. Our PAGs "suck" because, as a disorganized random herd of eccentric and online humans, we are really, really bad at collectively writing rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  You're completely wrong. It's because everyone wants to be a contrarian ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  No we're not! ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've started a Village pump discussion to discuss this further and with perhaps some more eyeballs/perspectives. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Because stewards would be the ones actioning this (since bureaucrats cannot -crat) I think they would want to see a community discussion for such a policy change. --Rschen7754 00:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    Discussion != RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    Would it be prudent to ask the WMF sysadmins to add crat to the $wgGroupsRemoveFromSelf configuration for enwp? Dax Bane 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    @Dax Bane don't think that is necessary, there are so little accounts this applies to and a request at SRP will be handled easily. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

    Indeed, this is generally frowned upon for content projects for multiple reasons - m:Limits to configuration changes. --Rschen7754 18:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, are there any bureaucrats that would be at risk today of de-sysop/de-crat under this new inactivity policy? Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  At the moment, just Cecropia, whose past 100 edits go back to 2012. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.