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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 20:10:36 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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)

• Questioning the judgment of a candidate who chose to run during a time of constitutional crisis is reasonable. The opposes should not be struck, and IMO they should be evaluated as expressing a valid concern. Feedback is a gift, even when it smarts. --valereee (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  And that is another reason why I think you'll be a great admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right that they'll make a great admin, @Boing! said Zebedee:, no doubt about that. I'll remain neutral on the validity of the Fram-related opposes myself, because on the one hand I do find them a bit unkind to the individuals, and I still think the WP project has massive net positives, which is why I don't intend to resign the tools myself. But I ceratinly do respect people's opinion (including your own) that for their beliefs, they do not wish to work for the WMF or enable the environment by replacing the admins that have been lost at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Desysop request - Dirk Beetstra

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.

---

Beetstra (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 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)

Dirk Beetstra The Board statement is a result of collective work, and is basically only what everyone unanimously agreed upon. The ones who signed are not the only ones who approved it, it is a joint statement. I believe you are right that a lot of what is proposed definitely should have been done years ago. True. Regarding the loss of trust, I believe we currently basically do not have other institutions - although a discussion about governance and some other ways may be useful. Pundit|utter 06:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit: I do NOT mean that statement to you, User:Doc James and user:Schiste in any way personal (hence the 'through'). I fully understand it is a statement from the board within the limits of what the board wants to disclose/state. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick thought that I don't think the fact that some things should have been done years ago is a valid criticism of trying to do them now, given that now is the soonest we have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: WMF has warned Fram for the first time over a year ago. They have pushed through changes in the ToU without community consultation. The soonest they had was ... over a year ago (possibly earlier, I don't think that they started with the Fram warning to change their minds)? They decided to play hardball and now, 3 weeks post facto, they come with other solutions they will take in the future? This was broken a long time ago, and it only comes to light now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that, but going back a year (or more) in time and not doing those things is obviously not an option now. Trying to fix it now is the only current option. If you think it's too late to do anything now, that's fair enough. But I don't think they could have done any more now than the current board plan (together with Jimmy's clarifications), and I'm a lot more optimistic than I was yesterday. Anyway, I'll stop preaching now ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

They are not trying to fix it now ... I am more optimistic as well, but by far not as optimistic as I hoped the messages would be. As I stated above, I have had this window open for almost a week now. The suggestion of having ArbCom 'looking at it' is to cry about. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, they have handed it over to ArbCom to make the final decision! Jimmy has made that absolutely clear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh .. where is that statement from Jimmy? Do you mean: "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee"? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean these statements - [1], [2], [3], [4]. For example, "To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide", "T&S is not going to be making any more moves like this without the agreement of the community. This is very firm from the board, and I will personally act, upon the advice of ArbCom, and with the backing of ArbCom and the community, if necessary", "To be fully clear (I'm saying this multiple times in the thread) this is not asking ArbCOm for an advisory opinion. It is a recognition that the traditional rights of the ArbCom remain valid. ArbCom has the authority to review this ban", and "To be clear, if ArbCom determines the length of 0 days, resysop, etc., I will fully support it. T&S would have to defy the board, me personally, ArbCom, and the assembled group of good people in the community. That's not going to happen". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not see those yet. They were posted after I posted this request. Nonetheless .. I am not convinced that ArbCom can do anything here that is helpful. If so .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to note, I find User:Katherine (WMF)'s statement just as empty as the statement from the board. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:18, 3 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.

Desysop request - Voice of Clam

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.

---

Voice of Clam (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)}

Please remove my bit. I've left a statement on my user page. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Under a cloud

I note that the WMF have referenced this essay I wrote <edit> started </edit> some years ago.

I think it'd be worth us considering developing it into a guideline. Could I encourage those watching this page to review it and help improve it, (or perhaps explain why we shouldn't have a guideline on this topic). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, it probably should be an {{explanatory supplement}} but since WP:CRAT is a mashup of information and policy already, shouldn't the long-term strategy be to create a policy page about all crat-related things, including what "under a cloud" is? Regards SoWhy 09:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe fixing CRAT is the better place to start. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the text is very good as it stands and has stood the test of time. Maybe promote it to advice page or guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Policy-wise we already have the line in the admin policy, If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation... The essay certainly helps to explain what some cases of "serious questions" are. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I amended my text above. I started the essay. Others improved it. Notably, FT2 contributed most of the good bits. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Under a cloud § New title is needed, I suggest renaming the page, but for a different reason. For a global audience, I think it would be better to avoid using an idiomatic phrase as the title. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be upgraded. In pursuit of avoiding WP:CREEP, we have been too reluctant to upgrade essays to guidelines. There are two changes that I would suggest:

• A full stop instead of a comma before "for example"
• Where it says "the usual process", it should link to Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices so that someone reading it doesn't have to hunt for the usual process. Note that the former does not incorporate all the detail of the latter.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Resysop request - Gadfium

Gadfium (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)}

Two weeks ago, I resigned, saying I have been dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise. I do not wish to hold advanced permissions on en.wikipedia in this situation. With the statement from the board of trustees, Katherine talking to the community, and Arbcom confirming that they have sufficient information from T&S to open a case, I believe the situation has significantly changed. Please restore my administratorship. I realise there will be a 24-hour hold. More information on my reconsideration is at User talk:Gadfium#On the "constitutional crisis".-gadfium 04:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back @Gadfium:, yes there is a standard 24 hour hold for commentary; I don't see any barriers to restoration at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)