Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 20:02:07 on October 21, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Hi. Should Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SabyaC be deleted? See a, b, c, and d et al. for precedent. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: the creator has been around for a couple of years and has 2500+edits, while it certainly seems TOOSOON we have no reason to just delete this, and its not hurting anything. Suggest you have a discussion with the page creator, who can request speedy deletion if he likes. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There'sNoTime (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested the removal of my administrator bit back in December, and would now like to request resysop. Many thanks - TNT ^💖 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less than three. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, what do you mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Less than three is <3 which is a ❤️ (or, as the case may be, 💖). TB likes TNT, ooooh. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Amory said. I typed it out in the edit summary in case anyone was confused, but, alas :) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks. I looked at the edit summary and saw less than 3 there too, just written differently. New one on me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back. SemiHypercube 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clever little user back with banhammer, good! (Bishzilla was admin once. Great feeling. Like, royal.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 00:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The wiki could use some more cats ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about some puppy snoots instead??!?!?! Praxidicae (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, no more cats! More nuts instead. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There'sNoTime for nuts. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem, because nuts make up a large percentage of the editing population. Natureium (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any nuts, but I do have this cat who's a bit nuts. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it! I was sitting here staring at the clock so I could do this one. Useight (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be slower next time. :) 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - TNT ^💖 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

De-sysoped 17 days ago due to inactivity the last year. I have now returned, and kindly request re-sysoping. Regards Jay(Talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've no great understanding of how this board works but surely making one or two edits annually around the time that the bit might be lost is gaming the system? And I make it 50 edits in total since some time in 2010 - I don't see how anyone can keep on top of changes to policies and guidelines etc with that sort of volume, even with the recently introduced admin newsletter. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for those two logged admin actions since 2010 eh :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this. As I understand it, only ArbCom and the WMF can desysop, except for inactivity or user self-request. However, there must be some sort of moral imperative/good faith to the rest of the community involved when requesting resysop after inactivity. No? - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find no fault with Jay. The community is intelligent enough to pass a proposal requiring one/10/100 logged administrative actions every year, if it wants. And if such a proposal hasn't passed yet, the community has no right demanding anything to the opposite from reapplying former administrators. Lourdes 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Master Jay, please note, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests. Everyone else, please note that this is not the best place to discuss changes to the inactivity policy, however there is a currently running RfC (Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards) where such input is being solicited. However, if you think there are any policy based reasons why this request should be declined please let us know. Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that you have been spectacularly active after getting back the tools at BN........∯WBG^converse 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Winged Blades of Godric: I suggest you revert this rather mean sarcasm. I'd do it on my own except the 'crats get annoyed when I revert anything here other than pure disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. Removed the last parts and you have my consent to revert; if it pleases you. ∯WBG^converse 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it's sarcasm itself to say that was sarcasm?! I don't see anything wrong with it. -- Flooded w/them 100s 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It was clearly sarcastic. Not subtly, either. I would suggest snarking here is not helping anyone or anything and if you dislike the existing inactivity policy, go participate in the discussion about changing it. Fish+Karate 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Master Jay, as part of your requirement to be accountable for your administrative actions, would you please explain why, as your only two logged actions in nearly a decade, you made the decision to both protect the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after a single vandalizing edit, and to also block the IP that made the edit? Could you please explain how these actions conform to current policy and community norms with regard to blocking and protection? Could you also please explain why you felt it necessary to revoke talk page access for the IP, and how this conforms to current policy and community norms with regard to revoking talk page access for anonymous users? Could you also please explain why you did not feel it necessary, when revoking talk page access for an IP, to notify the user of what steps to take to request an unblock, in the case that an unrelated individual found themselves editing on what may have been a dynamic IP?

Could you also provide your opinion, under the same policy regarding administrator accountability, why you feel the community should not see what is fairly obvious and egregious gaming our inactivity requirements as a form of bad-faith adminship, and why an individual engaged in such a pattern of editing should not raise serious concerns that they may no longer enjoy the trust or confidence of the community? GMG^talk 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]