This page has archives. Topics inactive for7 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III.
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 usethis tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.
TheBureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to theBureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Pleasestart 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, remaincivil, and remember toassume 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.
It is17:13:36 onFebruary 13, 2026, according to the server's time and date.
2025 Crat Activity Report
2025 Bureaucrat Activity
Crat
Logged Actions
Crat Chats
28bytes
11
2
Acalamari
2
1
AmandaNP
2
2
Avraham
1
0last crat chat 2023
Barkeep49
18
3
Bibliomaniac15
3
0last crat chat 2022
Cecropia
0last logged action 2007
1
Dweller
0last logged action 2022
1
Lee Vilenski
0last logged action 2024
1
Maxim
0last logged action 2023
1
Primefac
42
3
UninvitedCompany
0last logged action 2020
1
Useight
2
2
WereSpielChequers
2
3
Xaosflux
27
3
Xeno
0last logged action 2023
0last crat chat 2020
I was interested in seeing how much activity there had been for Crats in 2025 after last looking at it in 2022. I did a query to look at any add/removes of sysop, IA, crat, and bot flag. In the interest of being complete, I also added participation in the 3 crat chats (I counted Eggroll, Naoimi, and Uther as the three). Please let me know if I missed anything as I would be happy to update. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)20:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, isn't a cratchat supposed to be a crat-only discussion, that feels like a normal discussion as opposed to necessarily a formal "cratchat"Sohom (talk)07:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is technically a chat with 'crats involved, but it is not the "formal" term of art "crat chat" that we would find in that table. That being said, I completely agree with Barkeep including it in the activity table since itwas at this noticeboard and actually involved material significant to the 'crat crew.Primefac (talk)11:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When adding resysop chats to that table, I made the decision to limit it only to things formally called a "bureaucrat discussion"/"'crat chat" etc. simply because it was the only clear standard I could think of. There are definitely some discussions likeWikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 48 § Resysop request Gimmetrow that have that crat-chatvibe despite lacking such a heading, and if I were putting together the list on my own subjective criteria I would probably include that and the Uther discussion, but I couldn't come up with any objective line to draw there. If anyone has a better idea for a threshold for inclusion on the list, be bold! I agree that for 'crat activity purposes, though, it doesn't matter whether something's on that list (which is an infopage maintained mostly by non-'crats); the question is whether they're acting in a 'crat capacity. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)11:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a definition could be whether the discussion is:
Explicitly labelled as a "crat chat", "bureaucrat discussion" or similar term; or
A discussion that:
Features two or more 'crats; and
Is about whether a crat action (or which crat action) is required; and
Does not have an immediately obvious yes/no answer (i.e. it is something that actually needs to be discussed between crats)
I wasn't sure what to do with the Uther discussion where the Crats were making a formal decision with the powers that have been trusted to us. I erred on the side of including it, but didn't try to find similar such discussions when looking for the last such activity. I think a definition which limits it to just crat decisions around resysop/sysop also makes sense. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cecropia was an important contributor when I was just starting out, but these are the last relevant dates for major actions: promoted a user (2007), blocked a user (2007), deleted a page (2006). They have less than 13,000 edits total. They had fifteen in 2025. By the letter of criterion 2 for administrators they're in under the wire; 100 edits takes us back to December 2022. They pass thebureaucrat activity criterion because they participate in the chats, when they happen. That participation is a statistically significant portion of their editing activity on Wikipedia. They haven't edited at all sinceWikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 51#Someone will be mad at Cecropia, which lead to multiple users requesting that they consider resigning; seeUser talk:Cecropia#Crat resignation? andUser talk:Cecropia#Canvassing. I don't believe administrator recall applies to bureaucrats. It's something of an anomaly that Cecropia is still an advanced rights holder and I'm not sure how to address it.Mackensen(talk)16:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 edits in five years criteria is probably worth revisiting. For some people a year or two of a gap barely editing would likely be a healthy sabbatical. But 100 edits in five years doesn't strike me as sufficient engagement to demonstrate that someone wants to remain an active member of this community, and is keeping up with community norms. I suspect the community might be open to amending that rule to 500 in 5 years, and extending it to crats as well as admins. No need to personalise it by discussing the specific people who might be effected, especially as an RFC would give them the time to do some editing.ϢereSpielChequers20:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that even if a crat were to lose admin that would not require removal of crat. I generally agree with WSC and would further add that evaluating the crat activity requirement and/or whether crats should be subject to recall strikes me as potentially productive things. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)20:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on why they lose their mop; if it is due toinactivity orfailed recall then 'crat goes with it since the two are tied. If it is resigned voluntarily (such as when Xeno did it in protest) then crat can be kept.Primefac (talk)20:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(This seems to have been deleted by mistake). Renames are nothing to do with the crat role; they are performed globally either by Stewards or Global Renamers.CoconutOctopustalk22:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd, and... not in keeping with what (I believe) the current community feeling of "crat activity' is. I certainly don't feel it should be counted, since it is largely not the purview of crats and has no relevance to the expectations of the role.CoconutOctopustalk22:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was the consensus at the time, and there has been no reason to consider that consensus has changed, at least until now. If a change is desired in the definition of 'Crat activity, then it needs to go through the full RfC process, and we will all have to abide by any such changes going forward, clearly. However, by current consensus, renames are considered full crat activities, which is why I focused on them as I can fit them into my schedule more easily. Also, at least as of now, merely indicating an interest in continuing as a 'crat is sufficient. I'd suggest we address that first :) . --Avi (talk)22:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that, as renames have not been part of the crat toolkit for over 10 years now, and given any crats promoted since then may well not also be renamers, it shouldn't be considered crat activity. But that's really a matter for a larger RFC as you said. I do believe the community is perhaps overdue a larger discussion on the crat right, activity standards, etc, and I think Barkeep's table above is (and already showing to be!) a great way to start that ball rolling.CoconutOctopustalk23:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and I do not believe anyone would complain about having a new RfC and updating our activity requirements. That being said, I fear that the table, as it stands, "poisons the well" in the sense that it makes it appear that people whohave been in 100% compliance with the consensus to date are out of compliance. If an RfC occurs and a change in consensus, then going forward different rules will apply. If anything, I would at request that the table be updated to reflect the current rules and not the potentially desired rules. --Avi (talk)23:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if we are counting global renames as "actions" in this way, then all of the other things in note 6 would also be actions. And those are simply posting in RfA and BN.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)23:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned we should address the merely stating interest first, but it's still acceptable until changed via RfC, Lee. --Avi (talk)23:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why global rename actions were included in the toolset in the list of crat actions in the first place. The RFC at[1] included it without any real justification, given that the rename action had, at the time, just been completely separated from the Bureaucrat role. Nobody voting to support the new wording really commented on that, and it was questioned in the discussion section with no clear response. I wouldn't advocate for any decrattings on the basis of this, given that it is explicitly mentioned as an acceptable form of action right now, but equally it seems almost a no-brainer to remove that from the list of actions, given that it's a completely separate user right and only three current crats hold it. — Amakuru (talk)23:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also,@Barkeep:, for the record, I believe I have a "classic" crat action onSeptember 5 of this year. Was this missed accidentally or is there a reason addressing an Approved BRFAs does not count? --Avi (talk)23:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi (a friendly note that unlike this ping that you pinged a different user): myquery only it grants and removals. It did not hit changes of temporary to permanent. I just spent a some time unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to add this use case for bots and intadmins to the querry. I have for now updated the table manually for you and will continue to look for ways to add this to the querry for anyone else. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)01:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I ended up creating a python script to look at this and yours was the only action found by an enwik crat not captured in the table above. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)16:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that the statistics be correct. I will admit I feel a bit better that it was such an edge case that it only happened once last year (and doesn't seemed to have happened at all in 2024). Best,Barkeep49 (talk)21:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done byAvraham. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)15:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]