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, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 09:06:30 on December 26, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Dubious RfA page

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Blockchain, which was created yesterday but never linked to WP:RFA, and whose creator-candidate is now blocked for socking. The page should probably be deleted, but I'm not sure whether that's within the crats' purview to do, so am asking the question here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a ChatGPT vibe from the RFA answers too. If this ends up not qualifying for CSD, I would certainly !vote delete at MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't qualify for reason G5, which says, "A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." I'm not sure any CSD criteria applies. I think the bureaucrat RFA moderation is intended to be limited to ensuring civility and stopping disruption. Useight (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does qualify. The page was created after the original editor was blocked. Just not in this particular guise. SerialNumber54129 23:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. Useight (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CSD#G6 applied, but I *know* IAR applies. Deleted. I know this is the bureacrat's noticeboard, so I confirmed with User:Aardvark Floquenbeam that it was OK. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone doesn't get the joke, I don't blame you... it dates back 7 years. ([1]) Glad I'm not the only old-timer here. I've just had congratulations messages on my talk page for my first edit anniversary - that was 19 years ago. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issues with an IAR/G6 deletion for that; it's not going to go anywhere and is almost a G3/vandalism page. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfA closure.

Hi folks, With full disclosure that I'm in the oppose camp on the current RfA of @Significa liberdade:, I did want to mention that @GreenLipstickLesbian: may be a serious enough issue to warrant extending the RfA. "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer." I'm by no means certain that that contribution is enough to justify extending the RfA, but I certainly think it's worth considering. I'm less of a hawk on copyright issues than many folks here and I find the specific example raised concerning. That said, it may have already been discussed, addressed, or otherwise explained--it's the first I've heard of it and I've not yet hunted down any context. But I think more time for folks to discuss this ~~would~~ might be wise. YMMV Hobit (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]