Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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	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 06:13:23 on June 8, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Desysop request

Resolved

13:00, 8 October 2015 WJBscribe (talk | contribs) blocked Oshwah (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{uw-vaublock}} <!-- Username violation, vandalism-only account -->)

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) WJBscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This crat has run amok. Please block him and remove his rights. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

'crats cannot remove the crat user right at all, that would be a steward request. Arbcom would be the right place to go to get that ratified. But this may just be a mistake - looking into it now. Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a mistake and the user was unblocked shortly after by WJBscribe. Mkdw^talk 13:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Aye, that was one minute after blocking someone else, so I am guessing finger-slip? I see these blocking mistakes occasionally.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User now unblocked. This appears to be a simple mistake. Resolved here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I have explained to the user concerned, I intended to block a vandal whose edit they had reverted and accidentally blocked them instead. WJBscribe (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Happens all the time...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made a similar mistake: Special:Block/RadioKirk. HighInBC 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

When I was still getting used to the interface in use at the time.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Blocking yourself (incl. no E-mail access!). That's a good one. I don't think I've seen that before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the best argument I've seen for admins being able to unblock themselves. --ais523 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Better still would be a software feature flagging if an admin is about to block himself or herself (which I've done too). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There already is one, NYB. In big scary red letters. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It must be new since my misadventure. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thine Antique Pen

With all due respect to the bureaucrats, I think that the way this was closed was a mistake (though I may be biased as I did !vote support). The RFA was close to the traditional discretionary range and many, many opposes were pointed out as being very weak. I believe it should have not been closed as unsuccessful without at crat chat, or at least some kind of closing summary. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Just my two cents - I agree with you that there should have been some kind of explanation as to how things were assessed/weighted, but do you honestly feel as though consensus was reached considering all of the lengthy discussions? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably this should have been first raised with Nihonjoe. –xeno^talk 21:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

67% is nowhere near the discretionary range, and the trend of many supporters moving to neutral and oppose, and new opposers outnumbering new supporters, shows that the more recently raised concerns weighed heavier than many early support !votes unaware of the problems. The closure was correct, a crat chat was unnecessary in this case. Kraxler (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Liz was promoted with 70%, 67% is officially well within the discretionary range for a content creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, it was 73.5%! Are you saying that the discretionary range is different for prolific content creators than those who, say, work on vandalism or AfDs? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If consensus was interpreted through the lens of policy then I can certainly imagine a different ending. However discretion is just that, discretion. HighInBC 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There was another issue arising from the RfA. Some editors felt that bureaucrats should be prohibited from nominating candidates at RfA. I personally think that is preposterous, but it merits a discussion here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not a 'crat (any more), but the thing about being "close to the traditional discretionary range" is that it's out of the discretionary range. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• My point is that if you discount a large number of baseless oppose votes, it's quite possibly in the discretionary range. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Discounting votes is, in itself, an act of discretion. You can't double-dip on it to bump something up to discretionary range and *then* exercise more discretion on it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, the bureaucrats certainly could do that, in an appropriate case. If a hypothetical RfA were pushed from 74% to 67% by a dozen opposes that read "oppose, candidate has red hair" or "oppose, candidate likes classical music rather than rock 'n' roll" (or vice versa) or "oppose, no portal talk edits on Wednesdays during Lent," I trust that the bureaucrats would (1) discount the silly !votes and then (2) figure out the outcome. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the 'crats ought to do in this RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

discreet as always, NYB Sure, I guess you'd have to define the term "baseless". Myself, I'd usually define it--as used in this specific context--as "based on a premise that is factually wrong". Like, for example, if people were to oppose saying "this user is 13", and then it was shown that, no, the user in question is actually 35, then that might be baseless enough to disregard without needing discretion. But simply not liking the basis on which votes are founded does not necessarily make them baseless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would go one step farther than you. Suppose an RfA had 100 total !votes in it: 65 supports lauding the candidate to the skies for a wide range of qualifications and a long record of good contributions and supporting him or her without reservation, and 35 opposes based on the candidate's being age 15 and absolutely nothing else. If that ever happened, I might well call on the 'crats to chat and to close the RfA as successful despite the numbers. But I agree that that is not this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would, because even though I don't necessarily agree with the premise that age should be a barrier to becoming admin, it's not so out there as to be called "baseless". Though I don't think you were trying to imply this, "opposing because they're 15" is not equivalent to "opposing because they have red hair". Lots of things are age-restricted, and reasonably so: notably, for the purposes of this discussion, the CU/OS rights on Wikipedia (source: Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside). I might not agree that such a barrier is necessary for simple admin rights, but I can't honestly say that it's completely ridiculous and unworthy of consideration that others think so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)