Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
: We have 16 active arbs, elected as a group of highly trusted editors. One of them is a crat. I don't see that asking one other editor for input (off-wiki!) would have prevented the brouhaha at hand.<br>[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 11:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
: We have 16 active arbs, elected as a group of highly trusted editors. One of them is a crat. I don't see that asking one other editor for input (off-wiki!) would have prevented the brouhaha at hand.<br>[[User talk:Amalthea|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#832">Amalthea</span>]] 11:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'm unfamiliar with the current discussion, and my general view of Arbcom is positive. But how could it actually hurt Arbcom's ability to make an off-wiki call to have off-wiki input from people who the community widely supports in their role of wading through the daily musings of the community on the question of current standards for adminship? Of course, all the usual caveats apply: we can't know the results before we try it, everything on Wikipedia is voluntary, and there's never been an expectation that this is part of your jobs. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I'm unfamiliar with the current discussion, and my general view of Arbcom is positive. But how could it actually hurt Arbcom's ability to make an off-wiki call to have off-wiki input from people who the community widely supports in their role of wading through the daily musings of the community on the question of current standards for adminship? Of course, all the usual caveats apply: we can't know the results before we try it, everything on Wikipedia is voluntary, and there's never been an expectation that this is part of your jobs. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Enforced Wikibreak ==

I accidentally set my enforced wikibreak too long (like above) and can you remove it? The page is [[User:highspeedrailguy/vector.js|here]]. Thanks. --[[Special:Contributions/173.49.140.141|173.49.140.141]] ([[User talk:173.49.140.141|talk]]) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:51, 1 March 2011

    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.

    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 12
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 22:58:00 on August 20, 2024, according to the server's time and date.



    Withdraw RfA

    Resolved
     – Closed by Courcelles (talk · contribs). –xenotalk 21:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to withdraw my request for adminship, as it has become clear that it won't succeed. I'd appreciate if someone could close and archive it when you get a chance. Thanks. SnottyWong spill the beans 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RTV, another user requesting help

    Just noticed this, another user is trying to exercise RTV. Could someone here help them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The brouhaha over the recent desysopping is mentioned in today's WP:Signpost. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are reasons for Arbcom to want to prefer to do a desysopping relatively quickly and quietly, would it make sense for them to ask you guys for an expert opinion on whether the admin's actions are out of line with former or current expectations at RFA? If your services were requested, would any of you want to volunteer to offer such an opinion? - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We have 16 active arbs, elected as a group of highly trusted editors. One of them is a crat. I don't see that asking one other editor for input (off-wiki!) would have prevented the brouhaha at hand.
    Amalthea 11:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unfamiliar with the current discussion, and my general view of Arbcom is positive. But how could it actually hurt Arbcom's ability to make an off-wiki call to have off-wiki input from people who the community widely supports in their role of wading through the daily musings of the community on the question of current standards for adminship? Of course, all the usual caveats apply: we can't know the results before we try it, everything on Wikipedia is voluntary, and there's never been an expectation that this is part of your jobs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Enforced Wikibreak

    I accidentally set my enforced wikibreak too long (like above) and can you remove it? The page is here. Thanks. --173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]