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 05:25:12 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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

1. NCurse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm seeing an error here. NCurse is listed at

talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

So that’s a bot generated table, it isn’t meant to determine whether the 5-year rule has been met- merely whether there has been a year since their last log action (any) or edit. The 2017 action is in the “review” log and I don’t believe it counts as an administrative act. –xeno^talk 03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. The reason I was poking around to begin with was I noticed they got the standard notice with no mention that in their case the removal is permanent. Are we not doing that anymore? I'm fine with it if that's the case I just thought normally they got a different notice if the five-year-rule had attached.

talk) 16:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Someone simplified the template a while back, that is now covered by the phrase ”Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions,” –xeno^talk 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Beeblebrox: the inactive admin was notified that it was going to be removed and given a link to the policy which spells out the requirements. If you have improvements you would like to add to the standardized messaging it can be updated at Template:Inactive admin and User:JJMC89 bot/config/InactiveAdmins. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it’s fine that we only allude to it. Takes the sting out a bit. –xeno^talk 18:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's fine, was just curious. Thanks again.

talk) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]