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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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

Shortcuts

WP:BN
WP:BNB

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 07:02:14 on May 23, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Question at RfA

There is nothing further for bureaucrats to do in this matter. Clerking of RfA's is in the domain of 'crats, so this was an appropriate venue to raise a question about the possible removal of an RfA question. This is not the appropriate venue to further explore the motives or behaviors of any specific editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Resolved

– Question has since answered by candidate. –xeno^talk 16:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is wholly inappropriate. I'm tempted to remove it, but I'd rather a bureaucrat did it if one agrees with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: have you brought your concern up with the question asker? It may need some rewording to make it clearer what they mean. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a political quagmire. But if you think it will help, I'll ping them: Senegambianamestudy?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather problematic, but not enough to remove it without giving the asker the opportunity to either explain or self-revert. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user made three edits yesterday, the last of which was the question at the RfA. Before yesterday, they hadn't edited since August 27, so the RfA could be over before they have a chance to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using all my AGF powers, I don't see cause to remove the question right now. The RfA candidate is of course welcome to ignore it, or respond however they want. If this was my own RfA, I'd probably ask the questioner to provide more information if this was a topic I planned to participate administratively in - specifically to provide some source for their "...have left or are leaving the project" statement. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the question is wholly inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I don't see how. It's not a personal attack nor is it trolling. It's a difficult question and the candidate doesn't have to answer it, at all. I think removing that question would appear to be overreach by a cabal intent to pre-determine the outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cabal? Are you kidding?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a cabal. But why not just accept that it is a horse that will not run and hat this request? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it seems to be a topic being broadly discussed by WMF in Tunis this week maybe we should just AGF? (although it is wholly unconnected with being an Admin) Leaky caldron (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree that it's not an appropriate question. But, on the other hand, one of the attributes of a good admin is being able to deal with inappropriate questions and/or weird situations. I don't see any justification for removing it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Roy. It's an odd question and perhaps "inappropriate" to have asked a specific candidate a difficult question, but it is not extraordinary or out of a reasonable range of questions one may be asked when in the thick of an onsite issue. The candidate could simply decline to answer or offer an obvious and brief non-answer e.g. "I have no [or not enough] knowledge of the issue(s), etc". N.J.A. | talk 14:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate had answered the question at about the same time as my comment above. I think they handled it well, and perhaps we can move on? N.J.A. | talk 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an unreasonable question to ask. There is nothing weird or inappropriate about it. Given that an admin's actions or lack of can impact editor retention, especially in an area which is so underrepresented, I think it is a reasonable question to ask an RFA nominee. We should not just be asking easy questions in my opinion, but also difficult questions in order to determine whether the nominee understand the sensitive issues that has been affecting this project for years i.e. bias and racism, and to guage their attitude to the issues. They may not be able to fix the problem. However, an understanding of the issues, and the part they will play or at least attempt to play in order to resolve the problem are noteworthy in my opinion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senegambianamestudy, I think what people find objectionable here is your choice of forum. While I think you have legitimate points, I think it would have been more appropriate to raise your concerns as a community discussion (perhaps at one of the Village Pumps?) rather than springing it on an RfA candidate who doesn't appear to have any connection to the issue. creffett (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see @Creffett: it seems that some of the editors here objected to the question period. Surely, if I am going to give my vote to an admin nominee, I would like to know their attitude and/or solutions to an area that directly affects people like me and the subjects/articles we work on at English Wikipedia before being given the admin tools. As such, I think RFA is the appropriate place to pose those questions to a potential admin - who would have the power to impact editor retention especially in an already sensitive area. It's not personal. I was not looking for a panacea or a magic wand, but an understanding of the issues and the part (no matter how small) they will play in order to resolve the issues that had plagued English Wikipedia for years. I'm surprised that @Bbb23: who by the way is an admin, bothered to open this thread after reading my question, which in my view is relevant according to the spirit of Wikipedia (i.e. a collaborative effort of editors regardless of nationality, race, gender etc.). By opening this thread, this tells me he does not understand the issues, and therefore took offence to a reasonable question asked at RFA. And for me, that is a problem. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senegambianamestudy, so now that the RfA is over, what kind of an answer to that question would have resulted in your !voting support? It seems to me to be an unanswerable "trick" question, because the part that an admin will play in addressing systemic bias in the world is, obviously, none. That's way outside the scope of what an admin does. It strikes me like you're interviewing a gas station attendant and asking them what they'll do to solve world hunger. – Levivich 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of thank yous planned, including one for Senegambianamestudy, for the thought that editors gave and time they took in participating at my RfA. So let me start by thanking Senegambianamestudy for just that. I'm not sure it was a trick question and I'm not sure how my question played among voters on the whole (especially as their oppose came relatively late in the process). But I would love to learn what I can from Senegambianamestudy's perspective about the topic as it is very much one that I would like, at minimum, to understand and do not take lightly their suggestion that I don't understand it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accept good faith as to the question, that's certainly your prerogative (congrats, btw), but I don't. I agree with Levivich. S is a crusader. It's obvious from the question, from their edits, and from their userpage. I haven't reviewed all their edits, but, generally, agenda-driven editors are not a net asset to the project. I also think the 'crats might prefer that we take this somewhere else, but it seems to be dribbling on, so consider this my dribble.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not come here and accuse me of crusading and make up stuff about me. Your bullying tactics are not gonna work with me. You should be ashamed of yourself (especially for an admin) with your attacks and this whole thread you started against me. You do not like my question because the issue does not affect you and you do not want it highlighted. That is the issue isn't it? Editors who are affected may think otherwise. You were the one who started this dribbling mess of a thread against me and now you don't want to play anymore? If this is not the right forum, why did you open this thread against me here? Why couldn't you just come to my talk page and leave me a note? You wanted drama that's why you've opened this thread against me. Give me a break! And here is just a small example of how an eadmin's behaviour/action can impact editor retention. You did not behave like a good admin here. As such, you are more useless to this project than I am. And for your info, I don't give damn what you think of me. I have nothing else to say to you. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

help with a deleted user page?

Not a 'crat matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"This page has been deleted" (The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.)

21:45, 5 September 2019 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page User:SPMCC88 (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank)"

I would appreciate some assistance in reinstating my userpage. I was redirected here for assistance by RHawroth after asking them for help. They stated "The content of your user page was hidden by a mysterious, undocumented process which means that even admins cannot see the deleted content. We are not even allowed to know who did the hiding. I suggest make a complaint at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. — RHaworth." Please advise. --SPMCC88 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SPMCC88: The page content appears to have been removed under the Oversight policy. I'm not sure why RHaworth sent you here, the oversight process has nothing to do with Bureaucrats. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent SPMCC88 here because I did not know where else. (But I have now discovered.) I appreciate that oversighting involves the removal of sensitive information but why does that justify a total lack of information about what has happened? As a minimum there should be a log entry with a date and preferably a user's id and a comment: "edits suppressed - for more detail send an email to the address given at Wikipedia:Oversight". Where should I go to request a change of policy?

As to this specific case, I now understand the circumstance and will advise SPMCC88 appropriately. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: Surpressions are logged at Special:Log/suppress but is only visible to Oversighters. I would think it would be extremely unlikely that there would be any change in policy. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overriding global policy in play here, so any adjustments we wanted to make to our local policy would have to be sure and not contradict that. But more to the point is that our team is active every day in removing the worst of the worst stuff that gets added to this website. The whole point is that it be done as quickly and quietly as possible. It's a bit surprising that someone who has been an admin for 14 years didn't know about what we do, but I suppose we could take it as an acknowledgment that we are meeting our goal of our work being as invisible as possible.

For the record for one and all: If you see something like this, the only place you should ask about it is by emailing the oversight team. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC on user rights of (site) banned users is now underway

An RfC relating to user rights of (site) banned users is now underway at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users. Please feel free to participate. (I posted this initially on WP:AN without a plan to post it here as all 'crats are admins, but may as well put it here too for maximum exposure.) --Best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resysop request (KillerChihuahua)

After a period of inactivity, I find I am desirous of returning to the fold. KillerChihuahua (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log) 14:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed for inactivity on 2018-09-01; Last admin log on 2016-01-14. Appears to pass the 3-year and 5-year rules. There is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests, but I'm not seeing any blockers. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I was ill for a while. Good to see you still active, Xaosflux! Killer Chihuahua 14:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua: no excuses! (Well none needed :D) Welcome back! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are too kind. :-) Killer Chihuahua 14:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 14:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]