Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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 12:27:16 on August 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

debit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Completed by 28bytes, please use Dennis Brown's user talk page for additional messages to him. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't need my admin bit anymore, please remove it. I don't need any additional bits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Enjoy your break. 28bytes (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Mkdw^talk 03:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Boing! is sad :-( - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 is also sad :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dammit. This is not what I wanted for Christmas. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best Dennis, hope to see you back. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a good Christmas present. Worse than the usual coal I get in my stocking. Bah, Humbug! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This sucks. Whatever has gotten to you (and this place definitely can get to you), I hope you can work through it and return. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope you will be back after taking a break.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We are better with you than without, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on two queries

With respect to the timeline of Supports and Opposes at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem.

• On 22 December, there were 7 Supports and 8 Opposes.
• On 23 December, there were 6 Supports and 10 Opposes.

The current day is not over yet but the Opposes till this time outnumber the Supports again. I have a request for clarification on two queries:

1. Will the crats have a discussion on whether to extend this Rfa beyond its slated closure time?
2. If yes, will this be a public discussion through say a crat chat or will this be discussed privately?

If the answer is no to extending this Rfa, that's fine by me too. Thanks. Lourdes 11:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Any single bureaucrat may decide to close, hold, formally extend, restart, or move the RfA to 'crat chat. The content of the RfA discussion would be the primary factor. Through inaction of all of us, the RfA can be informally extended - that situation does not typically extend beyond a day. We strive for transparency and 'crat chats are normally open and on-wiki. Private discussions are rarely held for crats - unless there is something that would invovle arbcom, checkusers, etc - I don't see a private discussion being needed in this case. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lourdes 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than renames involving privacy concerns, we do not discuss bureaucrat actions off-wiki. You can always expect transparent explanations/discussions of our actions here in public, and if some of us disagree we will make that clear and explain why. One of my greatest frustrations with this project over the years has been the amount of discussion that has moved onto private forums. It is understandable where serous privacy issues are involved. It is not if it is done to avoid public scrutiny or to hide internal disagreements. I hope bureaucrats never do so - and hopefully having WP:CRATCHATs on-wiki reinforces that goal. WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The most recent chat is a perfect example - we don't always agree 100% but do strive for transparency. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have now closed this RfA as successful. Giving that the question was raised here, I think it best to explain why I didn't extend the duration of the RfA (beyond the 2 hours or so after the scheduled end time that had already elapsed). Whilst exceptional circumstances can justify extending the length of an RfA, it is my firm view that they need to be exceptional. The two examples that spring to mind are evidence of improper canvassing (in which case more time may be needed to dilute its effect) or the emergence of new evidence that came to light late in the discussion (in which case participants may need time to consider whether it affects their stated position) - I have expressed some previous thoughts on the issue here.
Neither applied to this case. Lourdes points above to evidence of a late swing in opinion, but the newer opposers largely cited (and expressly endorsed) the same points that had been raised early in the RfA by others. Indeed, several made it clear that they had been watching for some time and waiting to make a decision. The discussion ran for the amount of time mandated by the community, there were no exceptional circumstances calling for extra time, and a clear consensus was reached. WJBscribe (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

An absolutely appropriate close. Thanks for clarifying. Lourdes 07:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

My only caveat is that given the time of year this RfA took place in, when many people have priorities other than Wikipedia because of various holidays, combined with the very strong ending trend in the number of opposes, a decision to extend would, I think, have been quite defensible The moral here, it seems to me, is to tell people not to mull over their !voting decisions for too long if they have reservations, for fear that legitimate concerns will be pushed to the side if they aren't registered early enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, that was just the expression of my opinion, I'm not asking for any action of any sort. Perhaps in the future, no RfA should start between December 15 and January 3. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector's RFA started December 20. It has two more days to go and currently stands as the 9th most participated RFA of the year putting it in the top 25% percentile. In the last 24 hours there were an additional 10 support votes (between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day). Using that rate of participation, we can project Ivanvector's RFA to end up in the top 15% percentile for the year. Likewise, Ad Orientem's RFA began December 18 and closed December 25. That RFA was the 7th most participated RFA of the year in the top 20% percentile. In 2015, the RFAs that closed December 20 and 23 were among the highest participated of the year as well. This may suggest that late December is a relatively high point in participation at RFA. I can only assume because while people tend to spend time with family, they also have time off from work or school. December has always had a high number of RFA candidates as well which also suggests people select it as a suitable time for themselves as well. Mkdw^talk 23:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot Approvals Group candidacy (Wugapodes)

Hello 'crats, would someone please review and close: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Wugapodes? I (!voted in it already). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Resysop request (Cyp)

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

Sorry I haven't been very active, but I'd like to request admin/sysop status back, if possible. Κσυπ Cyp   15:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyp I'm not seeing any policy reasons to deny this. There is a customary 24 hour hold for comments on these type of requests. With only 9 edits in the past 4 years, you certainly are on the light side of activity - please be sure to review current policies and procedures before jumping back in to administrative tasks. Personally, I do hope you will actually be active - we are in need of admins to help with backlogs. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-bureaucrat comment) I appreciate that there is no policy based reason to prohibit this, but it irks me that we will give back administrator user rights so easily to someone who hasn't been around for so long. I don't mean to imply that you don't possess the temperament or character to be an administrator Cyp, but hardly more than 100 edits and no administrator actions taken over the course of the last 10 years, with just 9 edits in the past 5 years, doesn't give me confidence that you could know the current rules and practices well enough to be fully trusted with the administrator toolset, even if you happen to give them a cursory read. It's certainly a fact that you wouldn't pass an RfA today. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why we need to rethink our inactivity policy for administrators. At the very least, we should require one administrative action rather than just an edit over a certain period of time in order to retain the ability to request resysop. If you let your driver's license expire and don't renew it for five years, you have to take the driver's test again. The same philosophy applies here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators is right around the corner if you want to start an RfC on changing the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming any pending RfC will not influence this request? If so, there's no great urgency. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new RfC today would not put this specific request on hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)