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 22:47:51 on May 7, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Civility and vote weighing for borderline RfAs

There's been an interesting discussion over at RfA talk, where its came to light that at least one oppose voter is reluctant to soften criticism in case it weakens their Oppose in close call situations. Per "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." from WP:Civility and my general impression of Crats, Id guess you actually give more weight to constructive thoughtful oppose votes like this , compared to overly terse or otherwise non constructive !votes. Folk have been looking for workable incremental improvements that could be made to the levels of civility at RfA, so if its true you'd give weighting to the more constructive opposes, maybe one of you could make a statement to confirm? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, as you're mixing together three different things: strength of comment, civility and rationale.

Taking them in turn, as we know from the current ArbCom case, civility is a difficult thing to measure objectively. I would hope that blatantly incivil comments will be struck by the contributor or removed by other admins. As such, speaking for myself, it'd hard for me to give hard and fast rules about how I'd weigh incivil comments.

However, strength of comment (incivility aside) and good rationale are useful aids to judging consensus and not just for myself. I've seen several other Crats mention balance of weak/strong supports and opposes in their assessments. Not sure that's too helpful, however. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA Blackout January 18 - effect on RFA

Note that the RFC with respect to the January 18 SOPA blackout proposal has now been closed in favour of a global blackout. The closing discussion recommends that any ongoing RFA be suspended during the 24-hour blackout. Risker (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I've incremented the open RFA by one day and I or another crat will lock the RFA during the blackout. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I added an HTML comment discouraging people from beginning new RfAs during this period. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This "blackout" already comes at too high a price for my liking. I personally think that for Wikipedia as a whole to take such an overly political stance goes completely against the principles that I believed underpinned it. Whilst it is probably true that a sizeable majority of editors would oppose SOPA, I don't think NPOV should apply only to articles. Where do we now draw the line? To my mind, there are far greater ills in the world than SOPA. Will we start having blackouts in protest of those? This is the first time that editors have been canvassed on their political views and actively encouraged to adopt a particular position. We are a long way from striving towards political neutrality today and that saddens me enormously. WJBscribe (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole blackout is so incredibly misguided that I believe we should not adjust any "countdowns" that would be impacted by it. If "we" are going to shut down the site for a day for no reason other than political grand standing, then we should force ourselves to suffer the consequences. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, I agree wholeheartedly with you both, but knowing WP's editor composition, realized it was useless to spend my time debating things. The crowd was so great rushing towards the cliff that it would be futile to argue with them or try to get in the way. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting resignation

 Done MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Please remove my sysop bit. I've had a great run, and I'm done now. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted that this is not under a cloud, but I'm a about to go to bed, so I'll get around to doing this tomorrow and recommend you give it a second thought in the interim. MBisanz ^talk 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MBisanz. There is no cloud here. Even though it's easy enough to restore it, please reconsider this; perhaps just take a short time off to sort things out and consider what you want to do. Decisions made in the heat of the moment are not always the best ones. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GTBacchus would be a great loss. We need him. I've emailed him to ask him to reconsider. Tony (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not the heat of the moment. I just haven't been thinking aloud previous to now, so nobody knew I was considering leaving. I got upset with an editor, it's true, but I wouldn't ask to remove the bit if this hadn't been a long time coming. I'm not one to say something like this before the decision's final.

This feels like the right move, after a long, good run. I put a lot of love into this project, and I got a lot back. It's been a while since it's been fun, though. Time to move on. If I chose a moment that makes a statement, then I hope the statement is heard and heeded. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood and done. Thank you for your years of service. Let us know if you want them back ever. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I may do that someday. Keep the faith, and may this work be rewarding for you for a long, long time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Further resignation / withdrawal from Wikipedia

Please arrange for User:Icairns to be removed from Admin mode and Edit mode in Wikipedia with immediate effect. This is final, unwelcome, but necessary. Vandal-fighting is hard enough on its own - I'm not prepared to do this with a compromised account. Hopefully, you'll have alternative candidates prepared and able to take over. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)