Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DeltaQuad (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 1 May 2019 (→‎Inactive admins for May 2019: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 3
CHU reqs 1
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 13
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 23:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 13:11:34 on December 6, 2019, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
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


I'd like to thank Amanda (and any other crats who I might have missed) for her clerking at the current RfA. As recent events have shown, RfA is an important responsibility for the bureaucrats team and having crats rather than sysops or even editors (as had recently happened) be the ones to clerk feels like it is in keeping with this group's role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely and I’m glad that DeltaQuad is being proactive in this area.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, it is something that has been needed for a long time, and 'crats in my two cents should be administering it. If we want to change some of the level of toxicity of RfA, then this proactive enforcement is needed by the 'crat team. Whenever there is an RfA, I try to keep tabs on it as much as I can with life, so I'm at least aware of what is going on. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly, both with you and with the giving of thanks. I think a quick hand is called for, if only because others may take action in the absence of 'crats. It's unfortunate, but clerking has been done by editors, sysop or otherwise, which is not ideal to say the least. Any port in a storm, sure, but it's shaky ground. It's nice to have 'crat hands. ~ Amory (utc) 11:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely agree as well. Proactive clerking has long been desperately needed at RfA, and while any user can technically do this, most avoid it to avoid getting embroiled in the toxicity of RfA. Thus, it naturally falls to the 'crats, who hold the only position of authority at RfA to speak of. It is a travesty that the crats have traditionally neglected this role, and I hope that the fresh blood can continue to bring some much needed change. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea, and something I'll make an effort to keep an eye on in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely welcome to have more of this. Now, if only we had more RFAs, too... GABgab 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, throughout all the investigations and analyses of what's wrong with RfA, none of the suggestions for clerking met even with sufficient consensus of the work groups to start a formal RfC on the subject of clerking. Moreover, significant opposition was raised by other users who claim that clerking is not explicitly within the mandate of Bureaucratship. Exacerbated by the long time it takes for closures to RfA or getting a 'crat chat together when required, this seems to demonstrate that not many Bureaucrats are as active as they once were. I welcome the rare and recent promotions to Bureaucrat in the anticipation that this may now change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the clerking is a good idea in theory but I'll put on my cynic hat. If we collectively as bureaucrats start clerking/policing RfA more, it would be make it more difficult for us to also be dispassionate RfA closers. Bluntly speaking, we'd be "clerking" the oppose section more than anywhere else, and when it would come to a borderline RfA with or without a crat chat, there would at least be a perception of impropriety. I'm not sure we have enough crats where you'd have a couple "clerking" to leave enough for a chat if that was needed. In terms of active crats, I do closely follow RfAs (I guess RfBs too on those rare occasions) despite not actually making edits for weeks at a time. I'll review them quite frequently, especially during the first couple of days. Maybe there are other lurker-crats too. Maxim(talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Unflag bot

Officially retired almost 2 years ago after clearing almost all empty categories, never got around to request removing the bit. I do not think I will be putting it to use in the future either. With thanks. --qedk (t c) 18:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Maxim(talk) 18:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

sysop for JJMC89 bot III

Please grant the sysop bit to JJMC89 bot III (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · botop (e · t · c) · contribs · user rights). Maxim already granted the bot bit. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done and I also fucked up the log summary. Is there anything else I can mess up for you? :p Maxim(talk) 23:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maxim — JJMC89(T·C) 23:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
For our archives, this is per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot III. — xaosflux Talk 00:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove bot flag

Please remove the flag from my bot which has not run for a long time. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin Abuse

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.

I have no idea if I'm in the correct place to report Admin Abuse. I tried to follow the instructions for reporting, but I got so confused I don't know what's up or down. I hope I'm in the correct place. If not, I apologize.

Since I am a mere layman (computer idiot) I have tried to add an article about an influential person. Instead of receiving help (except for one nice Admin who said: "Hello and thank you for participating in Wikipedia. It looks like you got a pretty rough welcome! The standard mantra is Don't bite the newbies but that's theory and not always practice") ... I have been called names, been belittled for not "knowing what I was doing" formatting, etc and have been told outright to "deal with it".

I have been nothing but kind and courteous to ALL admins and have posed sincere questions on receiving some kind of help. I have sat on recreating this article for 10 years as being humiliated doesn't strike my fancy. Again, I know nothing about how to professionally create on Wikipedia. I don't understand all the {{ and [[ and :: and )) et al.

Why is it so difficult for a layman to post an create/edit/update an article? The only "training" I have is TYPE and hit ENTER.

If someone...anyone could help me without the holier than thou attitude and name calling, I would be SO appreciative.

I'm going to try once again to create the page for Finney Ross Master Leathersmith for the Rodeo Cowboy Associate for 40 years. (Precursor to the PRCA) Master Knife Maker

Thank you very much, Todd Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagedirtbiker (talkcontribs) 20:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Vintagedirtbiker, the correct venue to raise concerns about an admin would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for the assistance Primefac !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagedirtbiker (talkcontribs) 22:30, 29 April 2019 (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.

Inactive admins for May 2019

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 10:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Graham87: Shouldn't this be labeled May 2019? March 2019's was on March 1, and the other April 2019's was on april 1 --DannyS712 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Ooooooops, yes it should! I've fixed it. Graham87 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks to all for their service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)