Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard - Wikipedia


4 people in discussion

Article Images

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.

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 15:50:05 on October 4, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

The following inactive administrators can be desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Criteria 1 (total inactivity)
  1. Babajobu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: March 2023
  2. Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: September 2023
Criteria 2 (100 edits/5-year rule)
  1. Elf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Last logged admin action: August 2020

Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

i'm sorry to see that designation go, but indeed I haven't done much in recent years. I gave it my all back in the early 2000s became horrifyingly addicted to editing, and finally had to pull away. I will always do small edits and sometimes bigger ones. but, thanks all who continued to contribute in bigger ways. Elf | Talk 03:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Xaosflux: Haven't the rights been removed yet? I was updating the admin newsletter and thought I should remind you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
They are about to be - I usually do these and was travelling! — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done with thanks for their prior service. — xaosflux Talk 14:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wugapodes (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)

I continue to have less time to volunteer than I would like. It's gotten to the point where simple requests are piling up and I've lost touch with CENT-level discussions. I'm not using them and it's more of a liability than an asset for the community at this point. Hopefully I will have more capacity for volunteer work in the future and I may request them again at that point. But until then it's best to leave block-delete-protect to those with the time and enthusiasm. I'd like to retain page mover and template editor which were the tools I enjoyed most before +sysop and which I will be most likely to use when poking around. Thanks for the ride, and feel free to say hi if you see my name pop up while I'm on wikibreak. — Wug·a·po·des 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Enjoy your Wikibreak, and thanks for all you've done here. ϢereSpielChequers 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your prior service. — xaosflux Talk 08:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Enjoy the break! You are always welcomed back. :) – robertsky (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Crisco 1492 (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)

  • I would like to request a re-sysop for myself, with the intent of helping with DYK and alleviating some of the backlog. I have reviewed the criteria for re-sysopping outside of the RFA process, and I believe that I meet them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    They resigned the admin tools in August 2018 (BN request, confirmed here). Last logged admin action was a 1-year self-block in 18 August 2018, previous action was a deletion two days prior. They returned to editing for three edits in October-November 2019, and then in batches from July 2020, so there has been no 2 year period of complete inactivity. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Over five years since administrative tools were last used might apply here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    That only applies in inactivity removals, while Crisco resigned their access. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Hmm. Maybe Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools needs some clarifying then. The way I'm reading it it seems like any of the bullets in that bulleted list are disqualifying for resysop requests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request seems fairly clear that this point only applies in cases of removal for inactivity. I'm not sure policy ever anticipated this particular scenario. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's hard to imagine any other scenario it would be there for. (And IIRC we rejected a modification to remove it in the same RFC that added the 5 year/100 edit rule. Nope, the one before it.) —Cryptic 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    The scenario it is there for is for an admin who is procedurally desysopped for inactvity, for example Jayron32 has just been desysopped for inactivity. Their last admin action was September 2023, so they can request the tools back at any point until August 2028 (assuming they don't have any two-year period of complete inactivity). Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's hard to imagine any other scenario, besides this particular one, that the "In the case of removal due to inactivity" clause would be there for. (Or, equivalently, "if they are removed for inactivity" from the original RFC.) Since you can only get resysopped on request if you lost the bit for inactivity or by resigning. —Cryptic 12:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There are two scenarios in which you can get the bit back by asking:
    • After removal due to inactivity
    • After removal due to resignation (this scenario)
    The five-year clause explicitly only applies to the first scenario, and the 2019 RFC you linked did not reach a consensus to apply it to the second one too (in fact there was actually slightly more opposition than support). Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. I was responding to JSS's statement above that policy hadn't ever anticipated this scenario (that is, a former administrator who'd resigned, either over five years ago, or merely while their last logged action was over five years ago), despite it being worded for no other imaginable reason than to anticipate it - both in the current version of policy and in its original proposal. (Maybe we can track down that Beeblebrox guy who made the proposal and ask him.) —Cryptic 12:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ah I see. I missed the In the case of removal due to inactivity part. My brain didn't expect it to be there or something and paid attention only to the bold. Carry on :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
well this is good news! Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Welcome back Crisco! There's a 24 hour pause on resysops these days, and nearly 21 hours of that still to run. But I'm sure DYK will be glad of your return. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@WereSpielChequers: Huh? It's been over 24 hours since the resysop request was posted ... it was posted yesterday. I was expecting to do my regular changes to the former admins pages tonight ... Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, I seem to have lost a day here. Careless of me. Bit flipped now. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Rights restored. Welcome back! ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wish to resign from Wikipedia adminship. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't recall if there is a cooling off period for these - I don't think so. But FWIW, I'd suggest Mikeblas withdraw this and wait a few days to make sure this is what he wants to do, and to make sure he understands the implications of resigning now. Nowhere in the ANI thread was desysopping discussed, and the issue doesn't involve the use of admin tools. But there is still a risk that this would be considered resigning under a cloud, and resysopping in the future might not be considered automatic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not "there is a risk ... this would be", but "this will be with absolute certainty". Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Absolute certainty based on what? Unless I missed something in the admittedly sprawling AN thread, no sanctions appear to have ever been suggested against Mikeblas and certainly not desysopping, formal warnings or anything of the like. Wikipedia:Administrators is pretty straightforward about this: Former administrators may re-request the admin tools subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. The request is granted unless one of these situations applies (snip...) The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud". If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed. Can you show me where the appropriateness of Mikeblas status of an administrator is currently being brought into question? A consensus of administrators saying "don't do that in the future" does not constitute "a cloud" under the current definition. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
In my case, the appropriateness of me being administrator was not brought into question either, but when I asked for the restoration of status, a bunch of users suddenly remembered that they wanted to open an Arbcom case against me but never said it because I resigned the tools. That was good enough for several crats to think I resigned under a cloud. The Murphy's law pretty much guarantees this to happen. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not familiar with that background, but that doesn't sound like an appropriate example of "under a cloud" either. In any event, two wrongs don't make a right; while we can't predict the future, if such an "under a cloud" discussion were to arise, I should hope my objections here are noted by the 'crats. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whether resignation occurred under a cloud is only determined at the time of a request for readminship is made. Any links and comments left at the time of the request for removal of the tools are solely for the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request, which will form the basis of the crats' decision at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything under the restoration of admin tools section of WP:ADMIN that states that it's "only determined at the time of a request for readminship". Is there some subsequent policy discussion or other consensus where that was decided? If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal seems quite unambiguous that it is determined at the time of resignation or removal, not at the time of requesting readminship. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eh? That whole section is about what happens when readminship is requested, and cloudiness and similar terms are not mentioned elsewhere, determination at any other time is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what you're not seeing about this. WP:ADMIN states that The request is granted unless one of these situations applies: -- meaning that requests are automatically granted *unless* an exception applies. The exception in question here states: The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud". It then defines that further: If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.. At the time of his request for desysopping, e.g. right now, there are no serious questions about the appropriateness of his status as an administrator. So per the plain written word of our policies, there is no "cloud" that he's under -- a hypothetical request in the future should be automatically granted. So I'm asking, what is the policy basis for the claim that somehow this cloud status is decided at the time of requesting re-adminship? That's not supported by the WP:ADMIN policy. I see it mentioned in the essay WP:CLOUD where it appears to have been added by Dweller unilaterally amidst a broader discussion "under_a_cloud"-2020-11-28T18:26:00.000Z here for which I do not see a consensus-based formal closure. So unless I'm missing something, there appears to be no policy basis for suggesting that Mikeblas will have to request re-adminship. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding when the circumstances of a resignation are evaluated: it's basically just the operating procedure. Requests to restore administrative privileges are made to the bureaucrats, so they're going to determine when a request is made if the criteria are met. Now if the community decided to spend time to reach a broad consensus that the resignation was made to avoid scrutiny of their actions, I don't think the bureaucrats would ignore it. But many editors feel that their time is better spent waiting until a request is made before making a case for this motivation, rather than spending time speculatively. (As seen in the discussion to which you linked, there are editors who think otherwise.)
Regarding this specific case: personally, I don't see how scrutiny is evaded by resigning as an admin. The issues in question are unrelated to the admin role, and discussion about them can continue as the participants desire. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I should ping @Mikeblas: to make sure he sees this reply before it is actioned. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I was about to post something similar. I would certainly expect discussion about the ANI thread (and related thread on their user talk page) to occur should you request a resysopping and that will likely at least delay restoration while discussion plays out. Whether it will be determined a blocker is not something we can (or even should be attempting to) predict at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
While I'm sure we all want Mike to consider his actions here today and to consider whether there was a real reason for them to do this, they've been an admin since ....(checks notes) two months before this old timer made their first edit, so I should think we should already expect them to have deep knowledge of policies related to adminship. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ironically, this is one of those situations (not as rare as they might be, unfortunately) where even if we de-tool an admin, we are not actually losing an admin. As noted above, Mikeblas has been one for 17 years; in that time they've made ~150 logged admin actions. So, with such a lack of hands-on experience, a concomitant lack of policy knowledge is not so unexpected. Still, on a lighter note, their content creation is second to none, which is more than can be said for many. SerialNumber54129 22:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you meant ~150 logged admin actions? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oops, thanks. Yes indeed. Changed. SerialNumber54129 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply