|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
It is 11:10:19 on May 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Crat chat
Can we expect to see a 'crat chat before Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool is closed, since it's in the marginal territory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Depends on the judgment of the closing bureaucrat. If s/he feels it necessary, yes, otherwise no 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, Avi; after four hours, I was wondering if y'all were all on strike :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's called a life. :) (X! · talk) · @934 · 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or meagre wages... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or post-New Year's effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean we're all at the gym, Sandy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, just like me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm midway through converting my cellar to a personal gym (e.g. television, stereo, bar... oops, I meant cycling machine) but I'm still around. Just most RFAs seem to finish when I'm not about... Like this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, just like me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean we're all at the gym, Sandy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's called a life. :) (X! · talk) · @934 · 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, Avi; after four hours, I was wondering if y'all were all on strike :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- With a few hours to go it does seem like this will be a little borderline. Wether a 'crat chat is needed I don't know - depends on the next few hours - but have a spine gents (and, well, at least one (inactive) lady) - just be bold. That's enough from me, before I get accused of partisanship -yet again!!! by the clueless. n.b. ammended my commentary at the RFA to reflect strong support, but with no disrespect to Lear's fool don't really give a toss about outcome. Pedro : Chat 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pedro, I can honestly say that I sincerely hope a 'crat shat is not needed.[1] :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought it probably already qualified for typo-of-the-year. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pedro, I can honestly say that I didn't enter any commentary to attempt to influence the discussion: we do hope the 'crats among us have brains; they get to live with their choice, after all. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pedro, I can honestly say that I sincerely hope a 'crat shat is not needed.[1] :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have chosen to invoke the rarely used "time extension" for the RFA. The closing time has been extended by 3 days. I've provided a short statement here to explain my reasons. It's not particularly detailed, but I don't want my words to potentially affect the outcome of another person's RFA. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- A wise move, but I'm sure you'll get beaten up for it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure that this was the best idea. Both sides have had 7 days to extend their opinions. Extending it further only makes this RfA more of a war of attrition - which side will give up first? There's nothing that extending will achieve except for making hell week a hell weekplus3days. This idea has already been shown by other areas of WP. Unless new info comes up, which has not happened here, extending a closing time does not change consensus. (X! · talk) · @138 · 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you view it as a matter of "sides"; it doesn't seem like a particularly unpleasant RFA, and I don't see battlelines being drawn. I do see no consensus, as Biblio stated, and I view that through the prism under which I operate at FAC. I can't promote an article to featured status unless there is consensus, but I don't operate under a deadline. I have the option to wait it out, or restart the FAC if it becomes a complete jumble and wait for clear consensus to form. And if I goof, an article can be defeatured at WP:FAR-- not so easy with an RFA goof. IMO, Bibilio made the right call. Let's not add any drama by second-guessing the 'crat who had the cojones to do something; that's not in the candidate's best interest, and if there was disagreement, a 'crat chat could have been convened hours ago. Crats had a chance to speak up, so let's respect the one who made the call. A clear call is better than a marginal one on such an important matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, to X!) I can see where you come with that, but I don't believe consensus will be changed either. It'll simply be more visible. Although the RFA has its fair share of nitpicks and questionable behaviors, the amount of bickering is pretty low compared to the normal. bibliomaniac15 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If consensus will not change, it should have been closed. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Another thought vis-a-vis the differences between FAC and RFA; I have the option to let FACs run longer during the holidays, when many people are away. I don't see how second-guessing the 'crat will be helpful to the final outcome, one way or the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If consensus will not change, it should have been closed. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure that this was the best idea. Both sides have had 7 days to extend their opinions. Extending it further only makes this RfA more of a war of attrition - which side will give up first? There's nothing that extending will achieve except for making hell week a hell weekplus3days. This idea has already been shown by other areas of WP. Unless new info comes up, which has not happened here, extending a closing time does not change consensus. (X! · talk) · @138 · 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the intent is to get more views in Lear's Fool's RfA, would you mind it if I cross posted the links of this RfA to various community portals and forums? I don't really mind the RfA going either way on community consensus or lack of it, but if the RfA has been extended because "the addition of 3 supports and 1 oppose after the scheduled ending" proved there was still discussion left, then I'd appreciate it if we get the real community view on this RfA, whatever it might be. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it wouldn't be fair to most of the other candidates past – present, or future. That's my concern about this relisting. –MuZemike 08:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, although we might want to consider adding the RfX-box to such noticeboards in future, to advertise all future RFAs a bit more prominently. As for the extension, I'm pretty surprised by it as well. I think it's not a bad idea, considering the holiday-season in many countries but I think at the end there should be a crat chat nevertheless. This is one of those examples where consensus might just exist and more eyes might be beneficial to the final decision. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Crat chat for Lear's Fool
Due to the varying opinions on what consensus could be in Lear's Fool's RfA, I've opened at crat chat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool/Bureaucrat discussion. (X! · talk) · @0100 · 01:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yet another strange support (there are a few) of another account that was registered in 2006 but didn't post 'til 2009 weighs in to support after the RFA closes. Ho-hum. Do 'ya think you mighta missed a key point in your summary of the 'crat cht, X! ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deleriousandlost just explained he hit edit before I put the yellow box on. (X! · talk) · @107 · 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It closed at 0:02 (after three extra days). You put it on hold at 1:07; that account voted at 1:25-- seriously. Anyway, I'm more interested in the number of strange and old accounts that supported, and an account like this that lay dormant from 2006 to 2009, as did Lear's Fool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The whole episode seems rather suspicious to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The obtuse will frame it as a "content contributors" vs. "non-content contributors" difference :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- The whole episode seems rather suspicious to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- It closed at 0:02 (after three extra days). You put it on hold at 1:07; that account voted at 1:25-- seriously. Anyway, I'm more interested in the number of strange and old accounts that supported, and an account like this that lay dormant from 2006 to 2009, as did Lear's Fool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Deleriousandlost just explained he hit edit before I put the yellow box on. (X! · talk) · @107 · 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I would request that, if the determination of the crat-chat is that I should be promoted, I not receive the userright until I make a further request here. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool/Bureaucrat discussion#Some commentary on some supports. -- Lear's Fool 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the previous comment, for an explanation, see here. -- Lear's Fool 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine this is what Soviet elections must have been like. Lear's, you have my sympathy; you didn't ask for any of this. Townlake (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, Soviet elections were nothing compared to Nazi elections. [/thread win]. NW (Talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Soviets > Nazis. Let's not be hasty in deciding who won this discussion; a three-day waiting period has recently been implemented. Townlake (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Are you saying there are more Soviets than Nazis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Soviets > Nazis. Let's not be hasty in deciding who won this discussion; a three-day waiting period has recently been implemented. Townlake (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, Soviet elections were nothing compared to Nazi elections. [/thread win]. NW (Talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for bureaucrats promoting candidates
If it's not too much trouble, could the bureaucrats promoting new admins please take a look if they are listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and remove the entry if necessary? As administrators automatically have access to AWB, they do not need to be explicitly listed on the checkpage. This will help keep the length of the list to a minimum. Thanks, Nakon 05:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've added it to my personal checklist. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might be worth having one of our bots check it 10 days after a nom is opened. It could then check to see if the admin bit was twiddled and remove someone from the list if it was. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be easier to have a bot trawl the list for users who are admins and remove them on a monthly or quarterly basis. The list is already quite long anyway, I don't see that it's quite so important to remove them on promotion... –xenotalk 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 5 - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- This has been replaced by the request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Resysop request
Hi all. I requested desysopping about three months ago.[2] I was hoping that a bureaucrat could resysop me please. I believe I left in good standing, although I was involved with the Climate change arbitration case and some tangentially related matters when I let go of the tools. I could ask an Arbitrator to comment here on that if any bureaucrat wishes. NW (Talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, having an arb comment would eliminate the discussion that would no doubt arise otherwise. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No issues as far as I am concerned. Risker (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see no issues either; his bit was never an issue. — Coren (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No issues. SirFozzie (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Did I miss a step? The tally isn't tallying(?) on the page. CTJF83 chat 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)