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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 07:06:02 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

As part of the final decision in the RexxS case, the Arbitration Committee has passed a remedy to remove the administrative rights of RexxS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The passed remedy can be viewed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS § RexxS desysopped and an announcement has been made at ACN to announce the closure of the case and the remedy to remove RexxS's administrative rights. Would a bureaucrat please remove RexxS's administrative rights at their earliest convenience. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –xeno^talk 23:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an editor here and not as a bureaucrat...damn. :( Acalamari 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 'crats and others active or interested in adminship matters would find it insightful to read through some of the case pages, the RfA, and the 'crat chat that followed it. UninvitedCompany 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that the "RfA" was not particularly relevant, but (outside of the specific wording) I do think that the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS § ArbCom and RfA is worthy of note. Just to be clear, I'm saying specifically that I don't think the crats should be blamed for any of this. (although other have stated otherwise) — Ched (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, that you are, referring to my comments. I apologize for coming on too strong in words, but I still hope it does not come down to "blame" per se, but rather more like, 'after action analysis'. And I also would hope the focus is not on any individual crat, but on Crat process. The responsibilities seem too important, and consequences seem too painful or upsetting to too many, to not think about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really been following this case, but from a quick look at the findings-of-fact etc. it seems that the desysop has resulted from specific breaches of

WP:ADMINACCT, and not from some nebulous idea that RexxS wasn't suitable for adminship in the first place. Which is correct - I think that for ArbCom to imply that either the community who elected him, or the crats who interpreted that RFA, were incorrect in their reasoning would be a gross overstep of its sphere of authority. The conclusion from this must not be that the crats need to approach closures differently in future. IMHO they should take their direction in that respect from the community only.  — :::Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I see no reason to ascribe to Arbcom any overstep of any sphere of authority, nor any such implication that Arbcom is telling the Crats something. The community has instructed Crats about consensus gathering to some extent, but that's only part of it, the Crats process their own internal consensus gathering. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear about Arbcom, beside ADMINACCT, there was also

WP:ADMINCOND issues. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Alanscottwalker, (after ec) No, I wasn't referring to you at all, or any individual actually. There are/were a multitude of people who fell/felt that the 'crats were to blame the catalyst which set the situation in motion. Some even attempted to lay the blame causation at the feet of an individual crat. Personally I consider that to be extremely faulty logic. — Ched (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed wrong -- apologies. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A sad tale, to be sure. Of the whole chain of actions/decisions, by RexxS and others, that got to this conclusion, I'm not sure why to single out 'crat decisions at the RFA. I opposed at the RFA, but think the crats did a decent job trying to divine whether there was consensus in a situation where it was right on the edge. Unfortunately, it ultimately didn't work out, but it was worth trying. I know emotions are raw, but I'm also sad at the lamenting and criticism of Arbcom, who reached a fully defensible decision given the circumstances. I do hope RexxS comes back, and will be happy to support him at a future RFA after he shows Dr Jekyll has banished Mr Hyde. And crats, may you continue to do your best in even the tricky cases; just as you did in this situation at the time.

Martinp (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I don't think it is singling out, it's a chain, as you say. But desyssop is still rare, and more pertinent, this was relatively swift from that link in the chain to this. Among other things, maybe placing them into a divided community made the chain very short. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Enchanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   Last admin action: Dec 2006

— xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]