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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 20:29:12 on May 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Rename

I am User:Betacommand, (you can check my status on commons where I was renamed), I am not going to go with the normal rename process due my high edit count and the issues involved with such a rename. (we normally have to get a developer involved in order to fix what ever breaks). I would like all the userrights removed from my old account to my new account. I waited to do the rename here on en.wp until I was no longer under any restrictions, in order to make the least hassle and drama, thanks. Δ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

given the high edit count, I'm ok with this as long as the two userpages link to each other. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive already redirected my old userpage. Δ (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course many will call you "delta" as they aren't familiar with entering special characters. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats to be expected since that is my username :) Δ (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you have not complied with Rlevse's restriction "as long as the two userpages link to each other" in this edit to this page, in which you were instructed to have your new userpage link to your old userpage, which you have not yet done, so I'm not disposed to welcome you back just yet.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that would depend on one's definition of linked. The problem with the redirects is someone not familiar with Delta's history won't know Delta is AKA Betacommand. So for me something like "I was formerly..." and "I am now ..." is in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider redirects as linked as you can get. The I was formerly... and I am now ... I find cheesy and tacky. They are not required by policy so I'm not planning on doing something like that. I am not attempting to hide anything. If anyone has questions of who I am they can check what links here, or take a look at my first edits. Δ (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying your positions.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Then use something like Jack Merridew has at the top of his user page. Without a rename or user page link, there's nothing linking the accounts other than this thread which will be buried deep in page history soon. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was fiddling with that stuff earlier today (had not seen this thread). I'm thinking you mean the sock icon next to my user name; this thing got wonky with the deployment of vector due to the addition of a new level of containing block in the page structure (means they added position:relative to a deeper div; huh?: they messed with stuff). I've changed things to all work within yet another positioning context that I setup. I'm sure Deltacommand can pick it apart as desired. Prolly using some sort of delta-icon, or one for renames. nb: I hates user box templates, and they should never be required for such circumstances. Or the drop-menus I've restored? ;) I nicked those off User:Hersfold sometime last year. They had vector issues, too; much as above and due to the messing that keeps occurring with the topicon class; fixed similarly, today, and I added z-index, which is fairly specific to my user page mechanism. Cheers all, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{User previous acct}} also exists for this purpose, it would also help in heading off any concerns raised that you've renamed to avoid scrutiny. –xeno^talk 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would such a template be OK on Δ's talkpage? Reason I ask is, I'm seeing the pristine red of Δ's userpage, and I'm wondering if the stumbling block is a desire to maintain a red userpage. TFOWR 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. –xeno^talk 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Prev acct template on the talkpage only is okay with me. It should of course permanently be at the top. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like X! to explain this since discussion is ongoing here and he didn't bother to let us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called "I didn't see the thread before he pinged me on IRC asking for me to do it". Am I expected to watch BN like a hawk every waking moment? Especially when I was busy doing other stuff? I didn't think so. A simple "{{done}} by X! ~~~~" would be easier. (X! · talk)  · @975  ·  22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So BC starts the thread, some responses are made and many hours later he contacts you to get it done while discussion is ongoing here? Now I'm going to ask BC/Delta to explain this. At a minimum it's forum shopping. I don't expect you to watch BN every second but I do expect BC to know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is how I see it, 1. Renames with extremely high editcounts normally require devs to fix. 2. My userrights on my old account where in good standing. 3. There have been no issues with my new name 4. When a user renames their user rights get transferred to their new name 5. According to that logic (which everyone agrees to) my user rights should be transferred. 6. You are trying to hold something over my head has leverage to force me to do something that I would rather not. 7. I am under no restrictions and am in good standing with the community so the attempted withholding of my userrights as a form of persuasion to force me to add some stupid template or configure my sig to some silly thing saying Formerly user xxx is just cretinous. Since the only thing holding the issue back here is how I link to to my old username (Ive already redirected the pages to my talk) you have no ground for withholding my valid user rights.

upon those grounds I ask an un-involved crat to move my user rights, since because it seems your history with me prevented you from taking a objective stance with regard to my request. Δ (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your third point isn't strictly true. When you asked to be renamed to ∆, the request was denied by several bureaucrats [1]. Some of the concerns raised in that thread could apply equally to transferring rights to Δ and I think it should have been drawn to everyone's attention here. WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Following up this comment by WJBscribe, where was the "SUL unification request" referred to by Deskana made? –xeno^talk 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He asked me on IRC. I can't remember much about the conversation and I don't keep logs. Perhaps Betacommand has some. --Deskana (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but are usurp requests regularly handled in this manner? Betacommand, is there a particular reason you chose to initiate this request via IRC rather than the the usual fashion? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen requests on IRC before, and I wanted to wait until my restrictions expired on enwp before changing names here. I had already been renamed across the other WMF wikis, and just wanted to get as much cleaned up as I could before actually changing nicks. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they're not normally handled on IRC but there's no restriction against it. I'd like Betacommand to make any logs he has of our chat available to me. My memory is extremely hazy, but I seem to recall that I asked Betacommand to make the request publicly but he said he wouldn't, and made some comment about wanting to avoid drama. I'd forgotten about the previous rename request since it was just over three years ago and I had minimal involvement other than saying "too many people said no, sorry". --Deskana (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Betacommand informs me that he doesn't keep logs of his private messages on IRC, so it looks like my hazy recollection will have to do. --Deskana (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

@Betacommand, you've stated a few times you are under no restrictions, however WP:RESTRICT has a section listed for User:Betacommand with an expiry time of 'indefinite'. Has this been vacated? –xeno^talk 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure why that was placed there as those are not actual editing restrictions. Rather the conclusion of an arbcom case. Other than stressing that I follow standard policies, with that case there where no specific editing restrictions put into place. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that at the time of my previous request that the username policy frowned upon non-Latin usernames, this has since changed. Δ (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obfuscation isn't going to help you. You had a rename to delta denied, you come here to ask for something, the discussion was ongoing, no one said no, and you went behind our backs to get what you wanted. Now if you'd told X! about this thread it'd be different, but you didn't. This is sneaky, underhanded, and forum shopping. I was not the only one with the same concerns so don't try to single me out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not Obfuscation, its the facts. You are the only one wanting me to "Link" my old and new names. I am considering this closed and am moving on to more productive actions. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 10:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reread the thread, I'm not the only one. And some of the arbs have told me they agree with me. But not to worry, you're already displaying the same attitudes that got you in trouble before and will do so again and you'll do it all on your own. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the list of users requesting such a link. I'm unable to think of a valid reason for its omission.

Indeed, Betacommand/Δ engaged in dishonest forum shopping when he didn't receive the response that he wanted. And yes, he's displaying precisely the same attitude that led to the past problems ("I'm right and the rest of you are wrong, so I shall ignore you and go about my business."). —David Levy 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking the pages should have already been done. BC/D is clearly ignoring all this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled. When I click on the userpage, I get an entirely blank space. (Glad someone explained it's called "Delta". I'd call it "pointy triangle", but then I am a barbarian. Literally a barbarian, as it happens. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend Waiting for the Barbarians. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for resysop

Resolved

 – Resysopped by MBisanz

Can I please have my admin status restored? – iridescent 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issue here, ready to resysop in a few hours. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are absolutely no issues, as anyone around here knows. Heck, even the freak show of regulars at Wikipedia Review would probably vaguely welcome this particular resysop. What Iridescent's motivation behind this request is another debate however, but I smile and tip my hat at it.... Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support this restoration! :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to the removal request? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Request, removal. – iridescent 22:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complex stuff clearly. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This was today? I guess you're having second thoughts. Restoration is okay with me. I know of no reason not to. Pedro-no reason for your sarcasm. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That was today?????????? EVERY reason for my sarcasm. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly a year ago Rlevse. Don't see any problems with the request. Prodego ^talk 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OH DOH on me. Me being dumb is not a justification for Pedro's comments, which he's partly stricken. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

iridescent eats puppies. She absolutely should not be re-sysopped. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pedro mentions people from Boise (or wherever). He should be desysopped, hung, drawn .... etc. You get the idea. Iridescent gets back buttons on website is simple. The more pressing question is how do we get otters on the main page again? Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I had nothing against Iridescent's actions with they was an administrator and would be perfectly happy to see them back with the bit. However, if I remember correctly, Iridescent knew about User:Law being a banned user at the time of Law's RFA. By the time the ArbCom motions rolled around though, Iridescent had already given up the mop. While I disagreed with ArbCom's actions in that instance, Iridescent was essentially in the same boat as Jennavecia at the time. Does this affect anything? NW (Talk) 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it ought to? Or are you just trolling, as I was accused of doing when I objected to the restoration of another administrator's bit a few days ago? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that Iridescent should be resysopped. I'm just commenting, as I did last October, about the inconsistency of ArbCom in this matter. If they really intended to be fair, they would prevent Iridescent from being resysopped or restore LaraLove's bit. But since when has ArbCom ever been consistent? NW (Talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally dream about Laralove's bits, but I guess that's a discussion for another place. FWIW, I agree with you NW. She was a good administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The details of Iridescent and Jenna in the Law matter are not the same. Afraid that's about all I can say on it in this forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued. Lara 03:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

While I hate to spoil a brewing drama, here are the opinions of the only two Arbcom members to express an opinion:[2][3]. – iridescent 23:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that I know of no public reason why they should not be resysopped and Rlevse is an arb who should reasonably know any private reason, I'm resysopping at this time. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for that 24 hour wait period, eh? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRAT#Resysopping doesn't say we have to wait 24 hours... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I had planned to action this by midnight as well and concur with the result - there is no set wait period (#3). –xeno^talk 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's almost always a sign of a weak argument when someone goes pointing to a project-space page as justification for their actions (even more so when they're pointing at the absence of something). The real question isn't "why wait?", it's "what's the rush?" The virtue of a 24-hour wait period is discussed in the archives of this noticeboard. There seems to be some vehement opposition to it, though I can't for the life of me figure out why that is. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

MzM---"The virtue of a 24-hour wait period" has been discussed, but I can't remember the last time that the 'crats ever waited 24 hours. It was never put into effect and there have been several 'crats who explicitly stated that unless it is made official, that they would not feel bound by it. Thus, nobody actually waits 24 hours. I think what they've pretty much agreed to is no "instant" resysops like they used to do (eg 15 minutes after the request is made.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, did my comment above get missed? She eats puppies. PUPPIES! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse her with Tarrare. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you knew there was vehement opposition to the notion, why introduce it into the argument? Their dietary habits notwithstanding, iridescent is an excellent admin who, quite frankly (!), needs to get back to work after their extended leave. On a more general note: if every resysop request becomes an issue, we will surely see less admins giving up the tools when they decide they can be more useful without them... –xeno^talk 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the opposition comes from a handful of impatient bureaucrats and seemingly has no basis. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't made any specific objections regarding the request, am I understanding correctly that your concerns are strictly procedural? If so, I suggest you create a new section or RFC on the matter. –xeno^talk 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Resysopping is not a matter of consensus; therefore any illusory issue if "24 hour wait" is irrelevant. Issues only arise in "under a cloud" desysopping cases, and the criteria for resysopping are normally set out in the desysop decision. Those criteria should either be followed or referred to the desysopping authority for review. Simples. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[comments not relevant to current request removed]. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My sense here is that MZM sees a request for re-tooling as one of those "speak now or forever hold your peace" moments. Currently, the question in remoppification is whether they resigned under a cloud, and the two linked comments from Arbcom suggest sunny skies. I wouldn't object if someone wants to start an RFC on what re-sysopping should entail, but I would probably oppose changes, since I'm not aware that what we're doing now isn't working. I've vaguely supported a 24-hour waiting period in the past, but on this too, what we're doing seems to be working. If someone objects to a resysopping, we'll hear about it, before or after the fact. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another re-sysop request

Resolved

 – Bit restored.

I requested de-sysopping last year [4] for a temporary break, in the hope that it might give me the incentive to do more work on articles. Unfortunately, this didn't prove to be the case, and my "to-do" list remains just as full. I still intend to do article work in due course, but I feel I can help the project more as an administrator. I don't think I had any major problems during my previous spell as an admin, so I hope this won't prove controversial. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well I for one am pleased to see all the lapsed admins coming back for more of the same. I do wonder how many more of them are out there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• in case any of the crats have a problem looking for it Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

An unusual request re: Connormah 2

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 is scheduled to end about half an hour from the time of posting. I know this isn't the way things normally work, but I would like to request that a "'crat chat" be opened, given that this is right in the middle of what is considered the discretionary area. I ask mainly because I would be interested to read different 'crats' analyses of the arguments put forward I both the support and oppose columns, but also because it's been a while, if I recall, since we've had an RfA quite as close as this seems and to give Connormah something to take on board for either adminship or a potential future RfA. Disclosure: since I'm the nominator, I obviously have a conflict of interest, but this request isn't motivated by a desire to skew whatever the result may be. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's too late now but I'd also be interested in a little crat chat. AD's close mentions opposes concerned with the candidate's understanding of CSD but as far as I can read, this wasn't brought up. Pichpich (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry – I didn't see this thread before I closed the RfA. The RfA was indeed borderline, and I took considerable deliberation in making my decision. My suggestion to Pichpich is that he read the oppose section more closely. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to quote BLOCK and not CSD because I don't see significant concerns raised about his grasp of CSD. What did I miss? Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see anything regarding CSD. Furthermore, I have no interest in CSD, and the BLOCK concerns (from what I can tell) were based on a typo, so I'm not sure. Connormah^talk 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Fetchcomms' oppose and the reaction to the answer to question 8. I see that the problem could be viewed as a miscomprehension of BLOCK, but it's really neither here nor there. That Connormah's advised course of action was deemed unsatisfactory is what mattered. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was a very well thought out and, no doubt, long deliberated over close and the result, while I don't agree with it, was in line with the consensus or lack thereof. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully it'll go better next time after I've fixed some things here and there. Connormah^talk 15:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The two-cent advice I offered this morning to Connormah is to look over what people wanted (supporters and opposers alike), and then get talkative and specific about what he has no interest in, to give voters a chance to say "sure, that's okay" or "no, I really want you to demonstrate that you can do X". No animals were harmed in the making of this RfA, and I think he'll do fine next time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the close decision made by Anonymous Dissident. It's how I would have closed it as well. FWIW. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)