Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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 adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 22:31:18 on May 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Procedural note

I think it is important to clarify that the determination of whether a resignation was made "under a cloud" is not made until a request has been posted for the return of adminship. Policy as written uses "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation" as the standard. The original purpose of the policy was to prevent the use of a temporary resignation as a means to avoid scrutiny. While it has been interpreted to include pending arbitration cases, I don't believe that is necessarily automatic. It depends on the overall circumstances, and the disposition of the pending case. In particular, I do not believe users who resign while making a concession that they believe they were "under a cloud" is necessarily binding, should they make a request for the return of adminship at some future point.

Policy also specifically allows some sort of wider community discussion (but short of an RFA) to take place. As far as I know, this has never been done.

UninvitedCompany 21:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that an old ArbCom case did stipulate Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the ArbCom case, it sounds like the "under a cloud" determination is made by bureaucrats when resysoping is requested, not at the time of the desysop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, a statement/motion from ArbCom that there will be no cloud for the named parties would make things a lot easier for the Crats, as well as help smooth things over in the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see that happening for Will and Floq, given Arbcom's clear deference to the WMF in all such related matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically, Floq was restoring the status quo by the office, so if it participates and doesn't avoid the Arb case, there is a chance they would back off. Maybe. Will, however, is gone, and frankly, I don't think he cares. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree we don't determine if there is a cloud until later, and as I see it the bar of determining if there were "serious questions" is lower than a consensus of wrongdoing to said questions. Of course, one can avoid most drama here by just using the standard request process. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we please not go back to the bad old days when, if you wanted to ensure your resignation from adminship was immediate and permanent, you'd delete the main page and block Jimbo? If someone says something to the effect of "please don't resysop me on request if I change my mind later", honoring that seems the decent thing to do. —Cryptic 22:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Under a strict reading of policy that anyone by resigning when there's an ArbCom case/request against them put themselves under a cloud. an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule as per this ArbCom case .This clearly states that the resignation is deemed to be under a cloud or controverisal circumstances unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise and states ( in a motion) that the tools be returned otherwise one has to go through standard request process. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Resignation (Wizardman)

Noting here that Wizardman asked on meta that their bureaucrat flag be removed. See meta:Special:Permalink/19179107#Wizardman@en.wp --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: thanks for the note. Wizardman marked himself retired back in April. We'll keep the door unlocked for you Wizardman if you come back - thank you for all of your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wizardman, I think I said this before, but thank you so much for all you've done for the project, and all the times that you helped me out. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019#July 2019

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

1. Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) *
2. Doug Bell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Journalist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) *
5. Bald Zebra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

   *Last admin action 5+ years ago

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: You might consider using something other than a dagger, since that could convey that they died.... --Izno (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, was about to say the same thing; asterisks normally are used before daggers in typography, and daggers are frequently used to "indicate death, extinction or obsolescence". Risker (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Izno and Risker: OK, changed to *. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous Questions in RFA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are anonymous Questions allowed in WP:RFA ? As per additional Q4, via email.Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it means the candidate and nom wanted to explain it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Tony said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• This really looks like it is actually a direct question from Ritchie333 to the nominee and should be in Ritchie333's numbered question section and count towards their 2 question limit, not in the 'standard questions' section. Ritchie333, can you confirm? This sort of pre-work could have just been put in to the acceptance statement as well and avoided this situation. So long as Ritchie333 doesn't want to start adding multiple more questions I don't think in this specific case there is any worry. If this is actually Ritchie333 proxying questions for other editors, that would be a different situation to explore. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I've just gone ahead and moved it into the "additional questions" section and marked it as a question from Ritchie responded via email. It'll just save drama. Nominators coaching candidates is not unusual at all, it's to be expected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FRAMGATE Opposes

I am here to bring to your attention that there are multiple opposition votes on current RfAs simply due to the currently escalated political situation between our community and the Wikimedia Foundation. As these RfAs are supposed to be about the candidates' qualifications (or lack of) for the bit rather than our political issues, I would like to politely ask that these oppose votes be struck from the active count as an invalid reason for opposition. Thank you, Noah^Talk 00:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

'Crats know how to take these into account when they are assessing consensus. Striking usually occurs when there is a sockpuppet or clear violation of NPA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah, As it is right now they aren't making much of an impact on the success rate anyhow. I think it starts to become more of an issue for the 'crats when the scores drop in/or below the discretionary range. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. If any of us are still in post when it comes time to close the noms, we'll be sure to take it into account. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "I don't want the WMF to have replacement admins" is not a valid argument, but "I don't trust a person who wants to become an admin in the current situation" is completely cromulent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia in its current form vanishes, that will mean there is one less place in this universe where writing "is completely cromulent" can fittingly appear, & not be considered an act of snobbishness. :::sigh::: -- llywrch (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, no good answers here. On the one hand, opposing for reasons not directly related to the candidate is a bit unfair. On the other hand, saying we don't want any more admins until the Fram situation is resolved is a legitimate political opinion and should not be forbidden. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I probably wouldn't have !voted had it not been for recent events, so although I completely disagree with those who oppose purely because of Framgate, my supports should probably have equal weight. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting a moratorium, or worse still giving an Oppose, due to "current circumstances" overlooks that fact that less than 0.1% of active editors are participating in the nonsense. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree with DeltaQuad and Dweller; these can be evaluated at the time of closure. –xeno^talk 11:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur with the other 'crats who have commented. I do not believe it is appropriate to strike or remove the opposes. If there is enough off-topic discussion to disrupt the RFA, it will become appropriate to move the discussion (but not the initial votes) to another page. In my role as a 'crat, I am here to follow the process. Along with the other 'crats, I will interpret the results after the RFA closes. The 'crats have a long history of assigning little significance to votes that are made to prove a point unrelated to the candidate's suitablity as an administrator. UninvitedCompany 16:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Desysop request - Dirk Beetstra

I have had this window open for days, while completely stopping my on-wiki contributions that support or maintain mainspace material ('strike', including the anti-spam effort through the bot I control, XLinkBot). User:Jimbo Wales promised to come with a statement soon (with excuses), but that is now more than 2 days ago. User:Katherine (WMF) finally engaged but has not come with a statement either. As was clear from her initial contributions, she had no clue what was going on and how serious the situation is. It is not what I expect from a CEO of an organisation I have happily volunteered for for so many years. I can understand that she does not know what happens on a day-to-day basis, but not knowing it 3 weeks after all hell breaks loose (which means that none of your personnel informed you of anything) is too much. I can fully agree that there are more than sufficient off-wiki complaints, supported by on-wiki evidence, but the way this is implemented is tearing the community apart. More than three weeks!

And now the board (of all people, not Jan, not Katherine), through User:Doc James, user:Schiste and User:Pundit come with an utterly empty shell statement. Most of the message is something that should have done years ago (training, consultation, '[t]his is an issue we need to solve together', 'This could include current and upcoming initiatives', 'we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities'), and there is NO realization that the loss of trust is not just in the WMF, but also in the ArbCom now of handling this case. And then the utterly condescending remark that these admin bit are not/will not be considered 'under a cloud', it is NOT your call in the first place, it is hardly ArbCom's call (with some exceptions), it is the community's call.  You have lost it.

Please remove my bit. When (if?) this resolves I will consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do it by themselves in the meantime. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)