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

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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	0	0	0	N/A	Discussion	00:35, 15 June 2024	5 days, 22 hours	no	report

It is 02:20:43 on June 9, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

RfA for Dane

If you wish to discuss concerns about this RfA, please take it to that talk page. We really don't need discussions happening in three different places. We are now aware of the concerns, so the discussion here is done. Also, please keep it WP:CIVIL (which applies whether or not you read it). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:02, 11 April 2017 (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.

Could I please draw the attention of 'crafts to this comment about offline pressure being applied to !voters who are changing their position? I have asked for further details that may or may not be forthcoming, but this under-the-counter pressure is no way to progress an RfA, and brings the whole system under question. It raises the question of whether the candidate is that bad that they need muscle men putting outside pressure to press for the "right" result? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put my part of the story up at the RfA page. If the appropriate authority (ex. Bureaucrats) requests chat logs about the conversation, I can present those. — Gestrid (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the 'crats, I will repeat what I said at the RfA, I do not think that Gestrid has done anything wrong, but others seems to be going to considerable lengths (or perhaps that should be depths) to force this through, and pressure and events like this drag down the integrity of the process. – The Bounder (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree with The Bounder here, and I applaud Gestrid for having the bollocks to speak up and call out vote rigging where he/she sees it. Cassianto^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To repost what I wrote there: You're both blowing this out of proportion. I just looked back over my chat logs. There was general discussion of this RfA; at no point did anyone ask or imply that anyone else should change their vote. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know what was being implied. Why would someone ask another person, who at that point was indecisive, to revisit another editor's comment before reposting again? And while we're here, what does my block log have to do with this RfA? Is it fair that my block log forms part of someone's rationale for supporting this candidate? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I will repeat what I wrote there: publish the full text, identifying who was who. If people want to be open about their discussions, they should be honest enough to say what needs to be said on wiki, not in the smoky backrooms of an IRC channel. If you want people to trust admins, and the admin election process, then stop backroom shinnanagans by people who are supposed to know better. – The Bounder (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One could equally question the fact that one of the editors complaining here about canvassing was pinged to the RfA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't, as explained elsewhere. You really must keep up as you're making yourself look really rather stupid. Cassianto^Talk 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily respond to you once you read and understand WP:CIVIL. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I'd sooner stick my head in a blender. Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that you would rather stick your head in a blender than not violate a Wikipedia policy? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a user who was present during the 'situation' on IRC, I can confirm that the user in question never asked Gestrid to change their opinion. They stated their own beliefs of the situation, to which Gestrid responded by saying that they will review the circumstances. However, from the wording, I get a strong impression that Gestrid had desired to make a more thorough review of the situation before reading the other's comments. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:58, 11 April 2017 (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.

Removal of admin flag

Done, sadly, per private correspondence. Further discussion at the user's talk page or the active ANI thread, please. Noting that in the view of the Crat who removed the bit, this is in uncontroversial circumstances and the user may have his mop back on request. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 13 April 2017 (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 admin rights effective immediately. I am disengaging from this project. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that for you, reluctantly, but would just like to check you really want to. We need good administrators and I've always thought of you as one of our best. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well what has brought this on, but can I urge you to sleep on it? You're one of the better admins, and resigning won't really help the project. There have been far too many resignations of people I respect and trust over the last six months, and at some point we really need to sit down and sort this out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm allowed to write here but in the spirit of WP:IAR etc- Laser brain please PLEASE don't do this- it's not worth it- and you leaving is hardly going to help the rest of us. Come on mate. Don't let the buggers get you down, as the feller said. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 You have been extremely helpful to me (and to many, many others) at FAC, and to lose your balance and judgement would be a loss to us all. I hope a couple of beers and a good night's sleep will help you change your mind. - The Bounder (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (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.

Desysop, please

Seems I got logged out before.

Please desysop me for now, I am feeling burned out and I had not noticed, which is bad. Thoughtful people have made comments that indicate I need time off the abuse watch. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]