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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
DreamRimmer	0	0	0	0	Open	10:02, 4 June 2024	6 days, 18 hours	no	report

It is 15:23:56 on May 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Leading into RFA close

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 wonder if the other bureaucrats concur that the RFA that is closing in a few hours, if it stays substantially as it is now, has a reasonable consensus for promotion, and that it's fairly uncontroversial. Andrevan@ 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood was slightly controversial due to the significant volume of opposition. I think the successful closure was reflective of the consensus levels expected by the community. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I had read through the RfA and saw that there was sufficient consensus to promote. Apologies if I stepped on toes. Worm^TT(talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there was consensus to promote. Useight (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No toes stepped. Sounds like everyone concurred. I was hoping to short circuit a lengthy bureaucrat chat since the consensus seemed clear and minimally controversial. Sometimes it's good to act based on what seems like the right thing, and explain later if questioned. :) Andrevan@ 18:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cute. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you disagree? I believe WP:IAR is a core Wikipedia principle. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, even on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. If you can get to the right answer and discard some of the unnecessary ceremony or ritual, you should. In this case, I felt it was relatively uncontroversial to promote this user, and the 3 bureaucrats above concurred. We didn't need to have a big to-do about it. The system works. Andrevan@ 20:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that it’s really an issue for BN, but of course any good Wikipedian knows that sometimes we ignore the rules to do what’s best for the project. That’s fine as all policies and guidelines are, as they say, to be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

However a problem arises when a user with advanced permissions hardly ever actually uses them, and needs to invoke IAR to explain themselves for a significant number of actions they have taken with those permissions over a period of several years.

I also find it distasteful that you are making some rather transparent attempts to score points with your fellow ‘crats by making these statements here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I wasn't asking about that to be discussed here, I was talking about the RFA close. It shares a general principle, but I'm not trying to "score points." Let's both agree to discuss that in the proper place. Andrevan@ 23:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You explicitly asked for my opinion, you got it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You commented "cute," and I asked you if you did not concur with the close. I didn't make it about myself, you made it about me. It sounds like you are fine with the close, but you still don't like me. Fine, but here is not the place for that. Andrevan@ 23:13, 6 June 2018 (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.

Andrevan's resignation

Resolved

 – The resignation has been processed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan has requested on his talk page [1] that his advanced privileges be revoked. Due to the current ARBCOM case, this would be considered "under a cloud". power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note he is blocked and hence cannot post the request himself.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan has emailed us with his resignation, and Worm will action it himself when daylight in the UK rolls around. There’s no rush. A motion about the case will be posted soon. Thanks, all. Katie^talk 01:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

As the administrator status resignation has been confirmed to be legitimate, I've processed the -sysop action. However, I will leave it to Andrevan, the Arbitration committee, or other responsible persons to process the request for stewards to remove bureaucrat status at meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have requested at Meta. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This was completed on meta. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)