Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 29 October 2009

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

• 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.

It is 00:06:43 on December 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

User:Bubba hotep: admin rights

Please remove my admin rights until further notice. – B.hotep •talk• 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted to meta for the stewards to take care of. Sorry to see you go. NW (Talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not gone yet. – B.hotep •talk• 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If a bureaucrat could make a comment here to appease B.hotep's concern's, I am sure he would appreciate it. NW (Talk) 03:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww 3 suggestion

Hope you guys don't mind me posting here. I have made a suggestion here which you might want to consider. No idea what support it will get over there, but it is something you could consider to move this along. Cheers. Leaky Caldron 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LC is proposing that we re-start the nomination, let it run for around 3 days, and not allow any discussion, just votes. I tend to favor more rather than less discussion in general. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Returning user

I'm back, and I'd like my bit back, please - thanks. :) Krimpet (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Welcome back. -- Andre (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Krimpet (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sysop status - Mattinbgn

For the information of local bureaucrats, I have requested removal of my sysop status here. Thanks, Mattinbgn\ 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thank you for your contributions. MBisanz 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice given to KWW

I made this change to Andre's statement. I think this is what Andre meant, but it is critical that it be clear. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs but I don't object to the clarification. Andre (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections 2009 - Invitation for Questions

Preparations are ongoing for the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may not deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.

The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use this utility to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. Questions should be submitted at The General Questions page. If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask here. Thank you for participating. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with crats? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps UltraExactZZ was under the impression that this is a major Misplaced Pages noticeboard that many users will have on their watchlists, and that it would be a good means of disseminating an important message. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely if one wants to achieve maximum global awareness for an internal Misplaced Pages election, the simplest method is to start a thread at Misplaced Pages Review? Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

True. It would also probably generate more interesting questions too. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, having faced the inquisistion last year, that the idea of these questions (both group and individual ones) accumulating from now to 1 December (i.e. more than month!) sends a shiver down my spine. I wonder if we are putting off those who would make good arbitrators but don't have the stomach for answering such a volume of questions. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but it's to be noted that an ability to answer questions and justify views is critical to the role. In other words, the arbs need to have the stomach for it. —Anonymous Dissident 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is one of those things that unless you've actually been on it, you have no idea how bad it really is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to improve conditions? RxS (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that no matter what arbs/arbcom decides lots of users will howl at the moon, probably not--there are simply too many divergent views on how to handle any given situation, but it's not arbcom's job to make everyone happy, their job is to handle non-content cases that the community can't or hasn't been able to handle. Nonarbs simply do not understand how big the workload is either. It's enough to be a full time job, but it doesn't pay anyone's bills. Then throw in trying to get enough of the sitting arbs to argee on what to do, and I'm amazed anything gets done at all. AUSC and BASC were good moves, they took a lot of investigatory work off the arbs work load. Then consider arbs a top targets of trolls, banned users, outers, etc, and maybe you start to see the picture better. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BAG and bot flags -request for explanation for reasoning for this bot's flag

Moved from WT:CRAT. MBisanz 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats project page says, "In like fashion, Bureacrats are expected to exercise judgment ... in granting or removing bot flags on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. ... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner."

I would like to know the reasoning for granting CyberBot a flag in this BRFA. I do not see any community consensus for this task. In fact, I can find a lack of community consensus for the task.

Please elaborate. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping this has been explained to you before. this appeared to be a non-controversial issue filling in a template. β 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship