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 7 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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	172	1	2	99	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	5 days, 23 hours	no	report

It is 10:33:11 on November 12, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Cimon Avaro (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)}

This is me. I don't know what the current policies are. I cannot be an effective sysop. Remove my admin rights. It will be a blessing. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your long standing service (since 2003), and for self-requesting. I think we should create a special barnstar for admins who honourably request desysop after long service. SilkTork (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. It shows, hopefully without patronizing this or similar admins, great character, honesty and self-reflection. ——Serial 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm heartened by this trend of admins acknowledging such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm seeing multiple of these, and I'm always impressed with the self-reflection. —valereee (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we have RfAs like his? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cimon Avaro was the fifth admin to be appointed by the community under RfA: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were made an admin because they wanted to "stop thinking about the subject", and three others agreed. Happy days.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note of trivia. Cimon Avaro, your RfB was used by MBisanz in a rather difficult question in my RfB. I also thank you for your very long service. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, FYI: a periodic review of bureaucrat activity has been performed. There are no inactive bureaucrats requiring action at this time. See the report for details. The next possible action will be in September this year. As there are no imminent removals, an exhaustive search for possible edits which could have earlier timestamps has not been completed. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I have been an administrator for 14 years and have been thinking about retiring for the last year or two. I am not that active as an administrator and have not kept up with Wikipedia's expanding bureaucracy. I can be more helpful as an editor than as an administrator. For the avoidance of controversy, I want this resignation to be permanent, no resysop without a new RfA. That isn't going to happen any time in the next decade because I'm busy in real life. Afterwards, who knows. Also, may I please have rollback and any other goodies you give to experienced users?

I have a request for ArbCom. Please do not let concerns about me detract from your important work. I have requested arbitration over serious editing misconduct that has caused extensive damage to our articles related to The Holocaust in Poland. Please take care of the articles and ignore all the flak. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Jehochman: removed, thank you for your prior service. I can't promise that every 'crat would refuse a reinstatement request - but I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would defend the position that should you want to run an RfA in the future you should be fully allowed to. is there any reason why a crat would deny a former admin the chance to stand at RFA, whether they are eligible for automatic restoration or not? The only reason I can think of why a former admin (who is not blocked or banned) would not be allowed to run at RFA would be if ArbCom had explicitly prevented it (I don't recall them ever having done so which they have not done in many years) or set a time limit (which they haven't done in the last 6 years at least) that has not yet elapsed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I have amended my comment after it was pointed out on my talk page that my recall was not perfect and a remedy to that effect was passed in 2006, but withdrawn in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Thryduulf: I'm not going to hunt them down - but have seen arguments forwarded that using RfA when BN request is available is waste of the community's time, so shouldn't be used. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen such arguments, and so don't know the reasoning behind them, but my first impression is that it's a not a definition of "wasting the community's time" that I agree with. This is probably not the venue to explore the issue further though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:I think we're on the same page here - I don't think any 'crat would shut down an RfA with something like "Use BN" - my comment was that if other community members argued that RfA was inappropriate that I would oppose such an argument. Personally, I'd prefer RfA was the default venue for regaining sysop following removal for most reasons (notably short-term declared leaves of absence excepted) - but when acting at BN I follow the policy as it stands today and don't let that personal feeling get in my way of processing reinstatements here. If Jehochman actually asks for reinstatement here, I would not process it - but also wouldn't individually "decline" it, I would request further discussion. Hope that clears up any confusion! Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that clears up any confusion! it does indeed, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sad to see this, Jehochman. The project is sorely lacking in administrators. The number of successful RfAs per year is down to single digits, while the number of administrators resigning or leaving for inactivity is growing fast. I hope you reconsider your request and request resysop. Even if you rarely use the tools, we would all still benefit from that occasional use. I can see obvious shades of your recent ArbCom case request coloring this resignation, and I urge you to take heart that a sizable majority of editors and arbitrators do not support desysop; you have not lost the faith of the community. With all that being said, if you prefer to hang up your mop, of course, I respect that. Best wishes. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can still help clear backlogs. I’ve got the page mover right. I can do non admin closures of things. User rights are trending towards unbundling, which is good. Moreover I recently identified a good RfA candidate. We just have to promote more often and we will be fine. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reckon we're trending toward promoting more often, though? The failure of every substantive RfA reform doesn't fill me with confidence. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable. If I knew anything about the Holocaust in Poland, I'd quickly make corrections to that article, where required. I don't have email, so should a banned editor try to intimidate me? the best he could do would be entertain me. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are currently sanctions being discussed at Arbcom (albeit opposed except an admonishment) I do see a potential cloud here, combined with Jehochman's decision for a new RfA, I would hope that it is a request that is respected.

Having said that, Jehochman didn't need to do this, and I for one would like to thank him for taking this step, which reflects well on both him and the project, allows him to carry as a valued member of our community.

Personally, I hope he does enjoy his time focussed on contributing as an editor, and when he has done for a couple of years he might come to me for an RfA nomination. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a name that makes me sit up and be respectful. Thank you for your hard work and wisdom down many years. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing while I'm here. Could somebody blast the second username on this list -> [2]. If you can't delete it, can you rename it to something humorous instead of threatening? Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I dropped a global hide request at Steward_requests/Global for that. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go as an admin. You've done a lot of good work over the years. I'm glad you're sticking around to do regular editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks, but you won't miss me. I am going to keep helping figure things out, though somebody else will have to push the button. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Am full-time with further studies and won't have need for admin tools. Can Euryalus (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) please be desysopped for now. All the best -- Euryalus (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-bureaucrat comment) Very considerate thinking! Best of luck with your studies, hope to see you around again soon -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back when the pressure eases up, Euryalus. Good luck with your coursework. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the studies Euryalus, hope you come back here afterwards. ϢereSpielChequers 06:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Easily the single best arbitrator we've had while I've been on the project, and someone who has always been extremely kind to me, even when I was a no-name autoconfirmed user with an odd predilection for policy discussions and NPP. It's very easy to forget those who serve without want for acknowledgement, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't acknowledge them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]