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

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	12
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 09:01:11 on May 23, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

RfAs should now be automatically placed "on hold" after 168 hours

Per the closing statement at the recent RfC, RfAs should be automatically placed "on hold" 168 hours after their starting time. The closer indicated consensus seemed to favour this being done in some automagic fashion. –xeno^talk 00:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An open question is whether this also applies to RfBs. (I'd lean not.) –xeno^talk 00:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion didn't refer to RfBs so maybe this does not apply to RfBs, but maybe RfBs may be changed to sync with RfA procedures? Thingofme (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it doesn't really change any thing we do (since we don't close early). Suppose if anything it could cause drama of the "you participated late and I reverted you" type. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A way to implement this change is to use a edit filter after the time of voting it disable any edits to the RfA pages except for administrators and bureaucrats to close the RfA, and bots to fix technical errors afterwards. Thingofme (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the edit filter idea (expensive to run on every page on the wiki, unable to isolate transclusion date). And doing it via template might have purging issues. Bot might be the way to go here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However a title blacklist addition, like Commons' Pictures of the Year voting maybe useful. Maybe a script for voting on RfA: Support/Oppose/Neutral with reasons like stewards election? Thingofme (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thingofme and Novem Linguae: Please bring technical implementation discussions of this to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFA max time holds - technical implementation. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be rather pointless to me, but okay. I never understood people complaining that an RFA wasn't closed immediately (down to the second). Some people have lives outside of Wikipedia, after all. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but The People have spoken. I'm trying to make the change as unobtrusive (and as painless for us) as possible. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I haven't seen it in action yet, but it doesn't feel like there would be much, if any, functional difference for closing RFAs. As long as the confusion of "Oh, it's on hold? I guess some other bureaucrat is currently examining it, so I won't" is avoided. And that would, I suppose, only happen if the would-be closer didn't know that a bot was automatically putting the RFAs on hold. Useight (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the linked thread above at WT:RFA, but my implementation idea adds a switch to {{rfah}} that changes "put on hold by a 'crat" to "automatically put on hold", so it should be fairly obvious which route has been taken. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. If you are interested in the process, please add any comments (positive or negative) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Coding v1 complete. If there are no major concerns this update will likely go live this weekend (along with updated closing instructions to match). Primefac (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing instructions - a question

So I just realised (and I'm not sure why I never noticed before... probably because I just clicked the link at WP:RfA), but our closing procedures for RfAs are right on the main WP:Bureaucrats page. I know there isn't much to say about us, but putting that level of detail seems a bit weird. I'm not saying it must be moved elsewhere, just wondering if there's any appetite for having the broad strokes at the primary page but the specifics moved onto a subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it staying as it is or being moved. There are details, such as the template list, which are purely technical details for 'Crats, and of little interest to a non-Crat, which may make the page cleaner if moved or collapsed, though I suppose the question should be asked of non-Crats to see if some of that stuff gets in the way of giving someone a quick overview of what Crats do. SilkTork (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, cross-posted a request for thoughts at WT:CRAT. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're below the content that is of more interest to a general audience, personally I don't think it matters if the procedures are on the same page. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it if you want, I don't really want to open any worm cans that will require making Wikipedia:Bureaucrats policy though.... — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous discussion (Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 4#Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats), I started WP:Bureaucrat policy for discussion purposes. See also Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats/Archive 5#Procedural policy or not?. –xeno^talk 14:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: I decided that the instructions are short enough that it probably doesn't need to have its own subpage. To that end, I have rewritten Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures now that the auto-close functionality has been implemented (including a better example of what a page needs to be closed). Feel free to tweak or word-smith as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about admin inactivity

I've recently made a small return to Wikipedia after a long near-absence, in no small part due to the gentle 'encouragement' from the automated warnings about the new (to me) activity requirements for administrators. I'm glad to see these finally established, as it's always something I thought would be sensible. I've been helping out at CSD, which hasn't changed much and didn't take much brushing up on, but the thought occurred to me: it's very easy to do a lot of work at CSD and not actually rack up very many actual edits, since the signal-to-noise ratio there is actually pretty good. Of the two metrics at WP:INACTIVITY, the short-horizon mentions edits or administrative actions, while the five-year-horizon refers only to edits. Should I be concerned that my apparent activity is still quite low when measured only by editcount? Or are we still sufficiently not-a-bureaucracy that I shouldn't worry? Happy‑melon 15:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Happy-melon and welcome back! The community specifically asked for the edit criteria to be added which works out to <2 edits/month on average - so yes, if all you do is process uncontroversial deletions, you will not satisfy the criteria. I think a point of the RfC was that admins that performed only the prior minimum activity were less likely to operate in line with changing community standards; by requiring additional continuous interaction admins would be more versed in current practices. This doesn't mean you have to add content to articles, there is always a backlog of admin tasks and general tasks in need of help, most of which will generate edits along the way. I do not think the point of that RfC was to encourage "bureaucratic" responses like making exactly 50 edits one day a year and otherwise being absent. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happy-melon, great to hear from you again, and glad you're going to become more active! As regards "sufficiently not-a-bureaucracy", that doesn't apply to admin activity due to a number of incidents with "legacy admins" during your time away - that is, some admins who had not kept up with community expectations and standards made some errors in judgement which caused the community concerns. Given your long term disconnect from Wikipedia I would suggest caution in using your admin tools for the time being. Better to contribute without the tools for a while until you manage to bring yourself comfortably up to date. I would suggest bringing yourself up to speed with admin requirements, and changes in policy since 2012, and keep an eye on discussions at WP:AN and WP:ANI. My memory of you is of someone diligent and knowledgeable, so I assume you know this already; however, I'd rather bring it up unnecessarily, than have you walk accidently into an incident. SilkTork (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although all of the above comments are true, if you maintain the level of activity you've had in 2022, that is high enough to not get desysopped for inactivity. (You have to make ~45 more edits before January 1, 2023 to avoid the 5-year rule and you've made 40 in just the last two weeks so that shouldn't be too hard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, all, good to see the bureaucrats are as calm and thoughtful as ever :-) Happy‑melon 08:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the 5 year rule

A few of us noticed a discrepancy between WP:RESYSOP and WP:ADMIN. There is an RFC to hopefully fix this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators § Clarifying 5 year rule. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resysop request (TheresNoTime)

Resolved

TheresNoTime (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

+admin

I wish to request the reinstatement of my sysop permissions (and ideally the IA I had at the time, but that can wait/be a separate request if needed).

For transparency, I resigned a couple of weeks ago during the closing day(s) of this ArbCom case (see also this motion in said case). Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard minimum 24-hold for comments apply. As linked above, arbcom has not imposed any prohibition from skipping RfA as a result of their case; however the policy requirement of If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation certainly still applies. At the time of resignation (2022-11-01T12:19:08) there was an open arbcom case that was in the voting stage. The votes at the time were in favor of admonishment for serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, but were unanimously opposed to desysoping. So now it needs to be determined if this policy criteria was active or not. I can see an argument that the prohibiting criteria was in effect, in that a case is by nature a "serious question"; however I can also see arguments that it was not in effect in that the desysop remedy vote was failing meant that this was no longer "at question". Comments welcome below. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my own !cratvote, I'm leading toward support restore; the purpose of the "cloud" rule is primarily so that an admin under scrutiny doesn't avoid additional scrutiny by resigning - as further investigation could be a huge time sink for everyone involved. In this specific case, neither the investigation nor possible removal remedies appear to be impacted by the resignation. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xaosflux, above. I see nothing that would prevent the admin bit from being retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a crat, but I agree with everyone above that this can go through. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a typical "under a cloud" case where we don't know what the outcome would have been. ArbCom said "don't desysop". If TNT hadn't resigned, they'd still be an admin right now, and anyone who had a problem with that fact would have to start a second ArbCom case. The fact that TNT did resign is irrelevant. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think you're eliding an important point. The WP:CLOUD metaphor is not one specific ArbCom thing but rather ...the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions (quoted from WP:RESYSOP). In terms of ArbCom's opinion in this particular case, it may be pretty clearly and cleanly decided (e.g. the WP:RESYSOP footnote citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels), but there are more to clouds than just ArbCom and there is more to scrutiny than just whether or not ArbCom still has desysop-ing on the table. Without opining on the case at hand, it's not irrelevant that someone resigns the tools. ArbCom removing the tools is a difficult step to clear, but there being murky/cloudy circumstances around someone is intentionally a lower standard. Bureaucrats saying "This could be dodgy, spend a week at RfA" is supposed to be an intermediate between "Clearly no issues" and "ArbCom took the tools away." One could think another has a cloud but support them at RfA, and bureaucrats have room outside of "is there an ArbCom PD that could pass?" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any non-case proceedings that were open in parallel at the time of the resignation (and generally the community abandons pursuing community sanctions once it has been escalated to arbcom) - but if there were and such a discussion was cut short because of the resignation, that could be its own issue. (Anyone wanting to present this please provide permalinks). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't meaning to imply there were any here, I don't think there were/are (beyond the PD talk, etc.). Just noting that there's more than just AC (or should be) for this sort of thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of resignation under a cloud is that it is not limited to resolutions in an ArbCom case; the phrasing used is serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation. If serious questions about whether TNT's violation of involved made their status as an administrator inappropriate existed in the broader community at the time of resignation, then an automatic reapproval may not be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No concerns from me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking with my arb hat on and not with my crat hat on and explicitly not voting as a crat because I believe it would be inappropriate to do so. I do not believe the committee would have desysopped, we had unanimously disagreed with doing so at the time of resignation, and there was a majority. What's more, the Arbcom requirement from over a decade ago that a person cannot be automatically resysopped after quitting during a case did not consider the scenario that we had already disagreed with with a desysop. Worm^TT(talk) 22:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Worm here. This was a unique situation in that we had already explicitly voted not to remove the admin bit just before it was resigned. I'm pretty sure that "unprecedented" can be taken literally here and that therefore the cloud rule simply does not apply. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issues with restoring the toolset - with the usual delay of course. I am a bit worried about the context of what went on, and would stress to TNT to not go down the same road. I've not read all of the arbcom case that is associated with this, but it's very clear that there was no want to remove the tools, and at the time it was stated that the tools weren't "on the line" (so to speak). Disgression is the better part of Valor. There's no policy reason why the toolset can't be returned for a voluntary removal like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like my hand is involved when it comes to this, so I won't be touching the buttons, but I think Lee made precisely the point I was coming to make. -- Amanda (she/her) 22:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: just FYI, it's "discretion", as in being discrete; see wikt:discretion and indeed wikt:discretion is the better part of valour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC) </pedantry> If you're okay with more pedantry, I'll just fix your own misspellings... Primefac (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the circumstances of the (self-)desysop and the feedback from the committee regarding it, I have to agree with my fellow ’crats that this request should be granted after the standard hold. Welcome back, TNT. 28bytes (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be to restore the admin tools for reasons I will explain in a moment; however, I'm not sure we should be voting to restore before we discuss if this request is one that comes under "In doubtful cases, re-granting will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.". Also, just for clarity, it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".
My own reading of the situation, and why I am in favour of restoring the tools, is that given that TNT had requested the case be held in public, and that at the time of the request the ArbCom desyop proposal was not passing, I can't see how the request could be motivated to avoid scrutiny or sanction. They had requested public scrutiny, and they were not going to be sanctioned by having the tools removed. I personally regard temporarily resigning the tools in a stressful situation to be a sensible and applaudable decision, and something that all admins should consider doing when faced with stress.

However, as I say, I am reluctant to apply my vote until we have decided if this request should be classed as a "doubtful case". I think it is a "doubtful case", but at the same time I doubt if there would be sufficient objections from the community to a resysop to justify holding a "broader community discussion", and so having such a discussion could be seen as unnecessarily bureaucratic. So my inclination is that a broader discussion is not warranted; however, I would welcome more thoughts on this, and particularly input from the community as to if a broader discussion is something desired. SilkTork (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that what we are having now is a "broader community discussion" given that this is a discussion among members of thecommunity that is broader than just the crats. Obviously it's not as broad as one at somewhere like AN would be, let alone RFA, but if the rules intended to specifically mandate an RFA they would explicitly refer to RFA rather than a vague phrase like "broader community discussion". Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In your experience Thryduulf, is there so far greater community input into this request than normal? If so, I think I could agree with your argument. SilkTork (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider all resysop requests then yes this clearly has more interaction than normal. I think it would be more relevant to consider resysop requests as falling into two types - (1) those that are obviously not at all controversial and (2) others (including this request). The reason for the split being that very few people see any need or benefit to commenting on type 1 requests (in all cases discounting post-restoration "welcome back" type comments). Considering the set of type 2 requests I would say this is at the high end of the normal range. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to simply label this discussion, after the fact, as a broader community discussion. The members of the community that like to discuss these matters know that the bureaucrats have the responsibility of evaluating the circumstances of how administrative privileges are relinquished, and this influences participation in what is generally considered a bureaucrat discussion. A community discussion should be announced as such in suitable venues, inviting greater participation. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the request for clarity (it would be helpful if TheresNoTime stated that they did not resign in order to avoid "imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction".), I certainly didn't do so to avoid further scrutiny. As I saw it, the result was a "done deal", and all "exposure, scrutiny or sanctions" had been levied. On a more cautious note, that situation put me over my own "red line" in regards to my health, at which point resignation was not only a matter of being upset, but peace of mind. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that TheresNoTime. That is exactly how I viewed it, and also why I felt at the time that your request should be immediately actioned. Given all the circumstances, including Thryduulf's observation that this discussion could well serve as the "broader community discussion", I can't see any reasonable impediment to the tools being restored. SilkTork (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork I'd say this discussion itself satisfies a "broader discussion", and would support any reasonable extensions in the minimum time requested. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how ArbCom could have been more explicit that this is fine, and I am happy to see TNT return to adminship. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case had reached its apex at the time that TNT had resigned, and it did not seem that the outcome would have been altered in any way as a result of her resigning or not resigning. WP:CLOUD states that cloudiness is determined when there seems a plausible chance their resignation was in part designed to evade or frustrate formal discussion of their conduct. The formal discussion had concluded. No further recriminations were pursued by the community, as they very well could have done so. Restoration of rights should be a done deal here. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's clear consensus here. Restoring the mop. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+intadmin

No objections, contingent on the +admin passing above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, either, provided the admin bit is retwiddled. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in principle I have no objection to TNT regaining all tools, I argued as much before the case kicked off. But I do think we should establish categorically that the ArbCom would not have been minded to revoke any tools had the case continued. This is purely to not establish a precedent that you can "resign under a cloud" at a point in time when a vote appears to be in your favour and then later roll back in purely on that basis. — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the circumstances of the resignation were completely unrelated to TNT's being an interface administrator, arbcom were not considering (nor was there any reason why they would consider) removing that permission, and there were (to my knowledge) no discussions about their actions as an interface admin at the time they resigned the tools, I can see no reason why this bit shouldn't be restored if they are reinstated as an administrator. Whether they should be reinstated as an administrator is something I have not yet formed an opinion on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If admin bit is restored then the intadmin bit should also be restored. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a proper bureaucracy, wouldn't that need an extra 24 hours wait, as only admins can apply for intadmin? —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IntAdmin can be restored immediately upon request by any admin who previously held the permission, so... no. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known we have a rule for this. Anyway, no objections. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]