| Revision as of 07:25, 5 January 2007 view sourceDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,754 edits →[]: fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:51, 5 January 2007 view source Dragons flight (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors25,794 edits ProtectionBotNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :::::Only a handful of the Bcrats also have CheckUser access — of the ''active'' Bcrats who have never been on ArbCom, it's basically myself and Essjay. The tool is not part of the Bureaucrat access level, but rather distinct. Arbitrators are the ones more commonly given access to the tool, so this note would probably be more effective if posted to the talk page of the ArbCom project page, where it might draw the attention of a larger number of users with access to the tool. ] 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | :::::Only a handful of the Bcrats also have CheckUser access — of the ''active'' Bcrats who have never been on ArbCom, it's basically myself and Essjay. The tool is not part of the Bureaucrat access level, but rather distinct. Arbitrators are the ones more commonly given access to the tool, so this note would probably be more effective if posted to the talk page of the ArbCom project page, where it might draw the attention of a larger number of users with access to the tool. ] 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::] seems to be suffering from Essjay-itis, just like ]; ie. Essjay is on Wikibreak, so it backlogs. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ::::::] seems to be suffering from Essjay-itis, just like ]; ie. Essjay is on Wikibreak, so it backlogs. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == ProtectionBot == | |||
| ] is a proposed adminbot entering trials. See: ]. I would ask the bureaucrats to consider sysop flagging the bot account for the purposes of the trial so that I can segregate its actions from my own admin actions. If the more than two dozen people supporting the adminbot aren't already enough, we can come back and have an RFA for it later. ] 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:51, 5 January 2007
 Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
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 | 14 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 03:50:33 on January 24, 2025, according to the server's time and date. |
WP:RCU
Just a heads up... a mini-backlog has begun to accumulate at WP:RCU. I suppose all the bureaucrats are still wrapping up their New Year's celebrations... -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean WP:CU (Changing username), not WP:RCU (Requests for CheckUser) Prodego 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Prodego, I believe you mean WP:CHU. WP:CU is the Cleanup forum. ;-) Redux 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. At least we all got something to do. ;-) Prodego 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I meant WP:RCU, although WP:CHU is probably worse. -- tariqabjotu 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Only a handful of the Bcrats also have CheckUser access — of the active Bcrats who have never been on ArbCom, it's basically myself and Essjay. The tool is not part of the Bureaucrat access level, but rather distinct. Arbitrators are the ones more commonly given access to the tool, so this note would probably be more effective if posted to the talk page of the ArbCom project page, where it might draw the attention of a larger number of users with access to the tool. Redux 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CHU seems to be suffering from Essjay-itis, just like WP:RFCU; ie. Essjay is on Wikibreak, so it backlogs. Daniel.Bryant 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Only a handful of the Bcrats also have CheckUser access — of the active Bcrats who have never been on ArbCom, it's basically myself and Essjay. The tool is not part of the Bureaucrat access level, but rather distinct. Arbitrators are the ones more commonly given access to the tool, so this note would probably be more effective if posted to the talk page of the ArbCom project page, where it might draw the attention of a larger number of users with access to the tool. Redux 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ProtectionBot
ProtectionBot is a proposed adminbot entering trials. See: Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/ProtectionBot. I would ask the bureaucrats to consider sysop flagging the bot account for the purposes of the trial so that I can segregate its actions from my own admin actions. If the more than two dozen people supporting the adminbot aren't already enough, we can come back and have an RFA for it later. Dragons flight 08:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: