Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:08, 31 March 2015

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, 50
51

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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 09:10:26 on June 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

In accordance with this motion of the Arbitration Committee, please remove administrative tools from Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WJBscribe (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that it's nice to see that ArbCom is willing to consider the facts and swiftly desysop by motion when it deems appropriate, irrespective of the merits of this particular case. Perhaps someone ought to crosspost this motion and its execution to WT:RFA so that they can consider the ease of removing a rogue admin under the present ArbCom and policy regime. Perhaps based on this we might consider lowering our standards, for example, from a 70-75 discretionary range to 60-65. Andrevan@ 23:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad to see they acted quickly and its about time. I wouldn't go cross-posting anything though just because of one isolated case. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new development. The ArbCom has been doing swift desysops by motion since at least January 2010. (Craigy144 went from original AN/I discussion of his misconduct to closure of the Arbitration motion in 10 days. A good chunk of that elapsed time was the ArbCom leaving Craigy144 an opportunity to respond before finalizing the motion. Most recently, Secret was desysopped by motion in December 2014; the process took a total of 15 days from misuse of tools to motion. And that case had to be handled on the mailing list, since it involved RevDeleted information. By motion – rather than by case – is probably the biggest share of ArbCom desysoppings.)

That said, it is likely to have little effect on RfA. WT:RfA already knows that support percentage in RfA is a terrible predictor of future misconduct (the median desysopped admin scored something like 93% support on his RfA). And the "rogue admin runks amok" scenario has always been more bogeyman than reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craigy144 had 100% support (13/0/1) in 2005 when there was hardly anybody voting at RfA, and not much opposition anyway. Dreadstar had 78.6% (55/15/1) in 2007. Secret had 75.7% (109/35/11) on his last RfA (his 11th) in 2013, and disclosed serious health issues. Judging from these three widely differing cases with their particular peculiarities, I don't think that one can establish any pattern or rule, deriving from the RfA voting stats, as to which admin will be desysopped in the future. Many others with the same or similar original RfA votes have been adminning away happily ever since... Kraxler (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion reigns inside my little head

If someone wants a courtesy vanishing, can they still email the crat's mailing list? There are some things at WP:VANISH that I think have been made obsolete with the whole SUL consolidation thing. I need to counsel someone on how to request this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the steward/global renamers mailing list if it's a global vanishing. Andrevan@ 02:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:16, 31 March 2015 edit Kraxler (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 35,578 edits →Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped: grammar fix ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:08, 31 March 2015 edit undo AndreJustAndre (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 42,390 edits →Confusion reigns inside my little head Next edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:

	If someone wants a courtesy vanishing, can they still email the crat's mailing list? There are some things at [[WP:VANISH]] that I think have been made obsolete with the whole SUL consolidation thing. I need to counsel someone on how to request this. --[[User:Floquenbeam\|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam\|talk]]) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)		If someone wants a courtesy vanishing, can they still email the crat's mailing list? There are some things at [[WP:VANISH]] that I think have been made obsolete with the whole SUL consolidation thing. I need to counsel someone on how to request this. --[[User:Floquenbeam\|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam\|talk]]) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
			:There's always the steward/global renamers mailing list if it's a global vanishing. '''[[User:Andrevan\|Andrevan]]'''[[User_talk:Andrevan\|@]] 02:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)