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 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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 06:59:35 on October 30, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Coffee

(non-admin closure) Apparently not actionable at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:16, 7 April 2018 (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.

Coffee has indefinitely self-blocked twice in the past 24 hours, with a statement that they don't plan to return to the project. Would this be considered a voluntary resignation of administrative privileges, or is a decision at ANI or ARBCOM necessary? power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I think "365 days of inactivity" should be applied, in case they change their mind in future. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.. Usual Coffee-drama-stuff. Once he fucks up and there are multiple editors complaining about his behavior and actions, he vanishes into thin air, only to return after an extended time span and then yet again re-resort to the same fuckwittery. Whilst, I would oppose treating his self-blocks as a resignation of sysop privileges, if he chooses to be back without giving up his mop, ArbCom looks like a great destination:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless User:Coffee or ArbCom explicitly asks us to remove his tools, we cannot. Blowing off steam, announcing a retirement, and/or blocking oneself are not sufficient grounds for us to desysop under current policy. Obviously he's upset and needs a break. Let's leave him be to enjoy his break. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging into this | his final contributions and his block notice don't look good for an admin at all. I disagree that Coffee should retain admin tools, per WP:ADMINACCOUNT. , specifically, point 2. His block message and prior edit summaries violate that point pretty well. Much as I hate to say it, had I posted a retirement message wwith the contents he placed in his block log, I'd be blocked, the message would be reverted and my talk page access might be gone or I might be subject to a stiff warning. Also, attempting | to speedy delete a portal for no other reason than he was the sole author, then putting the speedy back in when it was challenge with an incivil message also fails WP:ADMINACCOUNT , again point 2. I think the 'crats needs to reconsider on this one. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, the crat critters only desysop due to these reasons. "For cause" desyops have to be mandated by Arbcom. It would be good if everyone left this alone for now and commented only when/if Coffee comes back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 9 April 2018 (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 request (Gryffindor)

Gryffindor (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Bureaucrats, there a number of users who feel that I have abused my admin rights and engaged in moving wars. Although I did my edits with the best of intentions to help the project, it has also created controversy, and after a decade of being a sysop I request that my status be changed. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the header says resysop, and Gryffindor is asking for a desysop. — Moe Epsilon 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you meant to head this "Desysop request", didn't you, Gryffindor? Bishonen | talk 12:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That's what the template at the top said, sorry about the confusion. I just corrected it. Gryffindor (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]