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 23:45:50 on May 23, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Desysop (DeltaQuad)

Bit removed. Thank you for your service over the years. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC) amended 09:59, 21 October 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.

Please remove my sysop rights. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can desysop yourself, right? ∯WBG^converse 14:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically possible, but generally best left to others. –xeno^talk 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with regret. Noting that DeltaQuad has also requested removal of bur,os,cu at meta; they have a standard 24-hour hold for such requests. Thank you for your service, DQ. –xeno^talk 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Best of luck. With each valuable contributor who leaves, Wikipedia gets just a little bit worse. Something here needs to change to stop the hemorrhage of contributors. :| Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see this. Is this an under a cloud resignation? I saw some chat about misuse of advanced tools? Govindaharihari (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Govindaharihari: generally determination of clouds is only completed at such time as an access restoration request is made, but if you have some specific concerns to log here now (please include an actual diff/permalink) for reference you certainly may. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ...No? Whatever gave you that idea? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govindaharihari, if you are referring to the bureaucrst closure of Greenman's RfA a week or so ago, I for one would say the sky is blue and cloudless on that topic. Outside that, I have seen nothing to imply misuse big advanced tools Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Re. to RE, e/c) This, I imagine. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a "cloud", then it's a cumulus humilis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I was reading this chat with some comments about misuse of suppression. User_talk:Jbhunley#Email and thought that the request for removal was connected. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) a couple times. If that email thread is deciding the weather - I for one am not going to worry about carrying an umbrella. — Ched (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yeah, right. Thanks for that Ched ——SerialNumber54129 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govindaharihari: Bureaucrats have no control or domain over checkuser/oversight permissions. I have no concerns with DQ’s bureaucrat activity and hope to see them back. No comment about their administrative activity, of which I’m unfamiliar. –xeno^talk 15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OH NO.....So very sad, damn, this sucks. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise to see the usual AC / Admin / 'Crat wagons circling but this really is not trivial, whatever tools are involved... [1] Leaky caldron (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seems to have resolved amicably, with Jbhunley suggesting his concerns were addressed. Also, can you cool it with the no surprise...wagons circling stuff? These sorts of bad-faith-assuming pokes wear people down and make them want to do precisely what DQ did here: throw their hands up and leave. Your constant negativity at these noticeboards, and this one in particular, is unpleasant and counterproductive. 28bytes (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the bullying - it's bad for the digestion. What IS counterproductive is when attempts are made to air brush inappropriate actions by functionaries who have sought and obtained from the community positions of trust. I will always shine a light on that. Regardless of your opinion of me. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with 28bytes on this. DQ has an incredibly long history of constructive contribution to the project in many areas and it's very sad that she feels it necessary to give up the bit. I cannot speak to DQ's motives for giving up the bit, but I could certainly see that this sort of behavior here (and other places on Wikipedia) would be a contributory factor. I do not see any "airbrushing" here, simply an attempt to give context to a contentious situation. Waggie (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since my conflict with DQ was mentioned and I was pinged I want to make it clear that while we had a vehement disagreement it is settled. DQ acted with good intentions, corrected her error and apologized for the parts needing apologies. I consider the matter closed and said as much at the audit she self-instigated as well [2]. In fact I was rather impressed with how she handled things. Many people double-down when called out, she did not. I consider her a loss as an admin. Jbh ^Talk 00:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note Jbhunley I've moved this all in to the archive box section. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the archive, Special:PermaLink/922449827#Oversight_audit_request,_October_2019 - ArbCom motion, oversight action audit was closed without additional follow up needed, "The committee is satisfied that this resolved the matter and that DeltaQuad acted in good faith in accordance with the oversight policy." — xaosflux ^Talk 11:15, 22 October 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.

Resysop request - Voice of Clam

Voice of Clam (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I'm ready to pick up the mop again, subject to the usual 24 hour wait. There's no clouds on my horizon that I'm aware of. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that this has been seen. Last admin action in June, desysop was in July so no inactivity issues. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC) updated 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the BN request for desysop. I agree with cloudlessness. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a fell wind but nothing to do with VoC. All set for restoration. –xeno^talk 11:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No clouds and no meatballs that I can see. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By unanimous aclamation of the crats, you will soon be an admin again. --(Aardvark) Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these years I thought it was "Voice of Calm" duh. — Ched (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: Curious, since the username is less than two years old :) have a good weekend all! ——SerialNumber54129 19:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 huh .. I have no idea who I'm thinking of then. I'm really stumped. Must be a senior moment. You have a good weekend too. — Ched (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was Optimist on the run, but as I use that handle for other purposes it was getting confusing, so I changed it. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always reminded me of Paul McCartney...unfortunately for me! :D ——SerialNumber54129 19:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to complete the operation, they have been re-added to User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]