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 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

WP:BN
WP:BNB

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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 17:22:56 on September 23, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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]

(I suppose in the interest of transparency I should mention that I have supported the candidate) The fact that it wasn't brought up until the final few hours of the RFA isn't the candidate's fault, and it appears asked and answered to me. I wouldn't like to see a precedent set that asking a question at the eleventh hour should be grounds for extending an RFA, unless it was something far more severe than an attribution error. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfA isn't extended, there was an extra vote left after the RfA was placed on hold that should probably be reverted (cc Extraordinary Writ)? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's for the best if everyone just waits for what the crats decide to do. One vote at this point isn't going to change anything. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's closed as successfully now so I guess we got an answer. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I did see this thread before the close, but as JSS indicated the 11th-hour oppose is problematic but not entirely disqualifying; it would have taken 15 editors defecting from support to even get the issue to a 'crat chat, let alone get them to the point of an "automatic" fail. Only one additional oppose !vote was added, and it did not even address the potential copyright issues. Needless to say, I am sure Significa liberdade will be more cautious in the future. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way—just while we're here—could you, Primefac, adjust the closing tally to reflect the accuracy we strive for nowadays? <99% should probably cover it... ;) SerialNumber54129 22:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, two secs, though I would have thought >75% would be more accurate. Primefac (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that would please everyone 😀 SerialNumber54129 22:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, that now that I see the explanation, I find it believable and agree that there was no need to extend the RfA. I'm not thrilled with other issues in this RfA. And this specific thing (internal copying without attribution) is an issue, but certainly nothing so large I believe it would have swung the outcome, whereas I think a promotional copyright problem with an external site quite likely would have. Thanks folks. Hobit (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]