Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Shortcuts

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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:00:03 on November 26, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Removal of admin position (Bduke)

I now longer wish to be an Administrator on wikipedia due to my old age. Please remove me. I will continue to make a few edits. It has been fun. --Bduke (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your service. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of admin rights (Yunshui)

In the same email in which Yunshui (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) requested removal of his advanced permissions, he requested that his admin rights also be removed. He does not anticipate a return to editing in the near future, and we need to handle this for him without forcing him to log in and do it himself.

Either Xeno or Worm That Turned will verify shortly, as they don't like to flip the switch on this kind of thing themselves. Thanks very much. :-) Katie^talk 14:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming request received privately to remove the administrator usergroup along with the others. –xeno^talk 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

second confirmation too :( Worm^TT(talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it's been a pleasure working with you. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the OTRS permissions.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your service. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Possible Hypothetical situation

Hello everyone, I was wondering what would happen in case an RfA or RfB was a clear borderline case which required Bureaucrat discussion and surprisingly if all the bureaucrats on the English Wikipedia (currently 15) had taken part by !voting their respective support or oppose in that particular RfA/RfB and every bureaucrat had to recuse from the bureaucrat discussion? What would really happen in such a case and who would be responsible for determining consensus and closing that particular RfA/RfB? TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheGeneralUser, see rule of necessity. Maxim_(talk) 00:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't know the stats of this happening, but the odds that all 'crats including those who are relatively inactive, all come and vote on the same RfA are very close to zero. I rarely comment on RfAs myself because of my position as a 'crat. So this is a non-starter. These types of discussions usually go nowhere also coming here, lets not do this again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Maxim and AmandaNP. Also, Amanda, it might be a non-starter and the chances of this happening are almost definitely zero, but I was genuinely curious about this hypothetical situation, which I why I wanted to ask about it. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the near-zero chance of that happening (but who knows, maybe all of the non-voting 'crats are genuinely AFK after the 7 days are up) I think a 'crat chat could potentially still be held; there's a difference between voicing one's opinions and interpreting the results of an RFA. Granted, it has the potential to basically be a rehash of each person's opinions, but if done right the strength of arguments could still be made/compared and a potential result reached. To reiterate the above points, though, this is purely a philosophical exercise. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all Crats either voted or are unavailable apart from Amanda, then either Amanda would get to decide alone, or we'd have a Crat Chat. The decision would be Amanda's as Amanda would be the only one available to close the RfA. If Amanda called a Crat Chat I would expect that in such a chat each participant would say something like "I voted support in the RFA, however looking at the arguments raised both here and in the RfA I think there is no consensus to promote", same as participants in DRV. If Amanda closed the RfA alone, I would expect Amanda would provide a very detailed summary of the RfA to avoid controversy.

I'm OK with questions which involve Crats being raised here. SilkTork (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when I !voted on almost every RFA, one of the reasons why I submitted my RFB was that I had realised I was no longer taking part in RFAs by default. I may well look at them, and there are some candidates and potential candidates who I am not neutral about and am likely to support or oppose. I assume I'm not the only Crat who is of that mindest, so we are unlikely to have an RFA where all the active crats have !voted or otherwise need to recuse. But if we did have such an RFA there are several crats who are not so active and who would be chased up to participate in a crat chat - a cratchat that might take an embarrassingly long time if it required the participation of all the crats who were least active that month. TLDR: We have 19 Bureaucrats, we won't have an RFA where more than a dozen of us !vote or recuse. If that number of crats falls significantly or we have a cratchat that takes an extended period of time to get a handful of responses there will be several RFBs in the following few months to restock our crat cadre. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is no point in discussing this as it has already been explained why this situation would never come true. But in case it happens, and Delta Quad (Amanda) is the only uninvolved bureaucrat; then their closure would be something similar to a supervote, and it would make me very uncomfortable. But as a crat-chat won't be an option, and there are way too many admins (given the mop for their different specialities), it would not be wise to hold an "admin-chat". However, I will completely, and blindly trust the decision taken after the chat of this highly trusted group of users. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be a supervote if Amanda closed the RfA to Amanda's preference rather than to the consensus of the RfA. With a detailed summary showing the appropriate reasons for the close (including that there were no Crats available for a Crat Chat) there should be no need to question it. If Amanda (or whoever is the last crat standing) felt they could not make a decision by themselves, then it would be appropriate for them to call a chat, either by attempting to wake those crats who have fallen asleep in the comfy chairs in the crats' common room, or by calling on those who have already voted in the RfA (or do both). There are a number of options open. The absolute worse decision would be to close the RfA with no comment at all. But where the voting is close, or there might be other reasons why a close might be contested, crats tend to go for a crat chat or give a summary explaining their close. Either option (chat with those who have already voted or single close with explanation) is fine and within Bureaucrat scope. Bear in mind that Crats were voted in to close RfAs because their judgement and impartiality is respected and trusted, so there shouldn't be a need to feel uncomfortable when a Crat closes a RfA. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: The supervote, and everything else were just words so I could bring up this highly trusted group of extremely cool users

and yes, you are right :) But Xaosflux, and Primefac right too. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'd figure it out, and there are no deadlines - if the community really had a problem with the crat's trying to solve the problem it could always be kept on hold while the community elects more crats! I suspect the rule of necessity Maxim brought up would be the most likely solution. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no crats available to close an RFA, for any reason, the community can solve that by holding some RFBs (which should be done anyway if this hypothetical came to pass) and then the new crats could close the RFA. There would be a week or two delay in closing the RFA but otherwise nbd. Le v!v ich 06:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Interface administrator (Ragesoss)

I'd like to get the interface adminstrator bit back, in order to make some updates to some of the Wiki Education guided tours that student editors use. It's been a while since I needed to update these, so that right was removed for inactivity a little while back.--ragesoss (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good to see you around. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of admin rights (Nilfanion)

Nilfanion (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) Hi, please remove my admin rights. I do not see myself becoming active again in near future.--Nilf anion (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion: please reapply if/when you do become active again, it would be nice to see you active again at some point. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for all you've done so far. Hope all goes well with you on or off Wiki. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]