Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Hog Farm	73	1	4	99	Open	02:47, 22 December 2024	6 days, 7 hours	no	report

It is 19:14:38 on December 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)

1. Ev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Aug 2011

Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)

1. Cobi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last logged admin action: Oct 2022

• — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we thought what will happen to Cluebot III if Cobi is desysopped? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the bots in the cluebot family are admin bots and they have an active maintainer, Rich Smith -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And DamianZaremba, although he doesn't edit all that much, he is always looking after the ClueBots - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. I have updated User:ClueBot Commons/Userpage to point to the right people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple edits too. I think most of the pages now point to Rich Smith, DamianZaremba, and User talk:ClueBot Commons. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I am still around, just not that active. I still see things and pings. The bots have people that look after them, and I am still reachable, too. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 08:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Izno (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)}

Hi, please remove my int admin permission. Taking a break. Izno (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta Wis (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)}

I am being asked to resign adminship. Is it appropriate to request a break? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta Wis, we can desysop you at your request, and according to convention we do not decide at the request point whether the desyop was being done "under a cloud". However, given the circumstances, should you later request the tools back, there would be a discussion as to if these circumstances are "under a cloud". If you comfortable that such a discussion would take place, and that you may not automatically be granted the tools back on request, then I would proceed with the desysop. SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, and I trust the process. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — That's been done for you Ancheta Wis. Enjoy some stress free editing, and thank you for your long service to the community. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago an RfA was withdrawn, could one close it? Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On it, thanks. For reference, withdrawn RFAs are not time-critical. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team! This RFA officially went into a 'pending closure' status. Given that the result was 196/0/0, I went ahead and just closed it for you. When convenient, could you modify Robertsky's user rights accordingly? :-) Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and quote the top of this page about this... 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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ev'rybody wants to be a 'crat. Primefac (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac - LOL! Okay, that was pretty good... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👏👏👏👏👏 Very good! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah maybe you should try applying for RFB, I'm sure you'd pass very easily. Just something to consider. 80.42.196.251 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been approached a small handful of times with that suggestion. I'm honestly not sure where I'd stand, but I'm definitely open to considering it someday... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it ain't all it's cracked up to be. The pay sucks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You all get paid? And you didn't tell anybody? <raises my hand> (and in my best tattletale voice) - Teacher, Teacher, bureaucrats get paiiiid. - jc37 02:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this RfA is about to close, I do want to bring these two comments (1 2) by GhostOfDanGurney to the attention of the 'crats. I think that aspersions about the candidate should be struck (which I requested he do himself, to no response) before the discussion closes. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know we tend to allow a looser interpretation of what is and is not an incivil personal attack during an RFA, and that we generally only strike sock comments, but I have to agree with Leeky here. Such suggestions are way over the line. Leeky's linked request to strike them gives the appropriate context as to why. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those comments. I know RfA is generally seen as a free for all, but I don't think those comments should be immortalized on the RfA, even in a struck form, and I removed those comments per our regular rules of talk page conduct. Galobtter (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted. I don't wish to get into an edit war about this, so I'd appreciate a crat taking the same action. Galobtter (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(comment in non-admin capacity) I disagree that this is a 'crat matter. It is a straightforward admin matter. An uninvolved admin should block Dan and reverting user Lightburst for personal attacks. This isn't even a tough call. A counterbalance to the strictness of WP:CHILDPROTECT is that we must be very strict about aspersions invoking it. Otherwise it becomes a politicized cudgel with which to attack opponents, rather than a shield for vulnerable young editors. Shame on both Dan and Lightburst. This is utterly disgusting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would've done so if I hadn't !voted support in the RfA. Galobtter (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As would I, but it is within the jurisdiction of the 'crats to curb hostility at RfA and they should do so. I have no objection to an uninvolved admin taking action as a straightforward user conduct case, but I would prefer that a bureaucrat shoulders the responsibility they've been charged with for RfA in particular. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the notion though of "crats can clerk RfA" becoming "only crats can resolve RfA issues". Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm turning into a skeleton waiting for the 'crats to resolve any RfA issues. Maybe we should be broadening that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If I am reading this correctly, and I think I am, given the consensus of admins here about how inappropriate it is, I think it is appropriate for involved admins to take action, and put it up for review in due time. Admins should not just wait around indefinitely. I suggest admins take action per WP:BLP, RD2 and potentially OSPOL2. If consensus shifts the other way, no harm done. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I normally wouldn't bother commenting here and I'm reluctant to do so, but if this discussion is being used to measure consensus I'd like to make it known that I also think the comments are wildly inappropriate and should be removed. I agree that they're bad enough that they merit a very stern warning at a minimum. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the comments are "wildly inappropriate" "utterly disgusting" and "way over the line" why has nobody revdelled? Or even posted a warning on the now retired OP's talk page? Editors should not erase the comments of the minority voters - that seems like a fundamental rule for any fair election. I did not see anyone racing to remove Tony B's outrageous pointy accusations in this RFA - is it because he voted with the majority? Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you agree that there are limits on what all voters, including minority voters, are allowed to say about a candidate? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As the person who reinstated the removal, I do not care that it was an RFA where it happened, I did not participate in the RFA, I don't remember having previous substantial involvement with the candidate, any of the commenters, the first remover or you, the reverter. I reinstated the removal because uninvolved editors can remove serious aspersions in any discussion pages and because anyone can remove BLP violations anywhere. I believe I was not grossly incorrect in invoking BLP concerns and as such under protections awarded to me and the subject under BLP policy, I ask that it not be reinstated without consensus. That is all. What admins do or elect not to do is their business. What functionaries and bureaucrats do or elect not to do are their respective businesses also. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Much ado about nothing. Lately theleekycauldron has been wagging a finger at other editors. This is just another nothingburger which would have had zero attention if Leeky had not expressed outrage in the RFA and then started this thread. We need to protect the minority voters in RFAs. I think the answer is to vote in private because this is the kind of sideshow that comes out of public votes. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious BLP violations are never "nothingburgers", regardless of whether they're in an RfA !vote or not. leeky was correct to uphold basic standards of decorum and I commend her for doing so. Being a "minority voter" is not carte blanche to imply that other editors condone criminal activity. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you are talking about but yes, you are in the Leeky finger wag camp - I got it. And Usedtobecool, you are upholding a LOCALCON here about a 200-6 RFA. It is easy to get see a consensus in such a super majority. Maybe we all get back to editing now? Or do we need to see heads roll? Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are casting aspersions on Leeky without substantiation on a page that's not even for user conduct discussions. If you wish to move on, I suggest you strike and refactor. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really weird hill to die on. The offending comments were clearly inappropriate. It is unfortunate that the editor who made those comments has chosen to retire, but it was even more unfortunate that he chose to make them in the first place. Frankly, it looks like GhostofDanGurney was wildly gasping at straws to discredit the candidate due to a personal resentment from a couple years before, and that sort of vindictive behavior is not acceptable. We can protect minority voters without allowing them free reign to conduct character assassination campaigns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Shockingly enough, I do agree with you on your last point – I've come to believe that there's a clear need for RfA to be run by SecurePoll. The current system creates a vicious cycle where the smartest would-be opposers know better than to wade into the fold, leaving only louder and more easily rebutted opposes. Supporters then feel more license to badger those opposes, which scares away more would-be opposers, rinse and repeat until we're standing where we are now. The only tool we have to deal with that – actually taking out opposes that violate policy – isn't usable because (1) bureaucrats don't want to and (2) people generally feel that they have the right to vote for whatever reason they want in an RfA, otherwise it's censorship. There are exceptions to this (and funnily enough, TonyBallioni is the best one I can think of), but in general, I tend to feel that a private vote with public discussion both (1) actually allows more time for discussion and vetting, (2) lets 'crats and admins sanction discussion items that are so clearly personal attacks, and (3) allows opposers to vote their conscience without fear. The solution to the corrosive environment at RfA is that the discussion needs to be a discussion where you have to be constructive, and the vote needs to be a vote where you can participate without feeling like someone's breathing down your neck.

All of that aside, this wasn't a nothingburger. I understand why you feel that the minority needs to be protected – I actually do as well – but it can't come at the cost of our principles of civility. Publicly speculating that another editor is subversively pushing harmful views on child sexual abuse with no evidence is not okay. We can't compromise on our values as a community that way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is a 'crat willing to issue any warnings, perform any revision deletions, or otherwise say anything about the incident? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Issuing a warning is an admin function, not a crat function, so it doesn't require that particular bit to do so. I wasn't watching, but wanted to clear that up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, 'crats have RfA clerking power, that WP:RFA2015. Arbclerks can warn and actually ban you from arbspace. But maybe it is time for another RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the OT question, but why did I get 12 (!) notifications to this thread? Each came from a new post in this thread, starting from Lightburst's edit at 15:54, 5 January 2024, and it seems like a bug. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like the software thinks you're subscribed to this thread. Did you click a blue bell in the top right (on the same level as the header)? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I was subscribed for whatever reason even though I don't recall visiting this noticeboard. Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed admin permissions from Anthony Bradbury. I can confirm his death because both his son posted on his talk page, but also I have had Tony as a Facebook friend for over a decade and have confirmed his death with his family.

Tony was my RfA nominator back in 2007 and it pains me to know that he has died. He was a good man and, from what I know of his personal life, a downright cool guy. He went peacefully at the age of 80. Acalamari 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting for the record that I have also received independent notice of his death, though it was second-hand and I thought it best to wait for something like the above to occur. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully added an entry to Wikipedia: Deceased Wikipedians/2024. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My RfA nominator as well. I'm sorry to see this, sending my best to anyone who needs it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Moondyne (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)}

Please desysop my account as I am taking an extended break. Many thanks. Moondyne (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Please let us know if you would like any of the advanced perms in the meantime. Primefac (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]