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 5 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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 09:48:00 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Od Mishehu (Level II desysopping)

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.

The Arbitration Committee has

■ 16:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Useight (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the edit filter manager (EFM) permission was left in place and later removed by someone else. It seems to me that we should routinely remove other permissions that imply a high degree of trust in these sorts of situations, particularly permissions like EFM and interface administrator (IA) that are rarely granted to non-administrators. Perhaps there should be a policy on exactly what is left in place. Uninvited Company 18:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UninvitedCompany: the Interface Administrators Policy specifically calls for removal if -sysop for any reason. Feel free to update any procedural documentation on that one. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:EFM specifies a process for removing the access of non-admins; following a desysopping, that process technically governs. Maybe it should be amended? DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've amended Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal_of_permissions to specifically include IAdmin removal in the procedure. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no “procedures” for removing rights assignable by sysops. If there is a good reason to be removed, they can be removed. Amorymeltzer has removed the permission, which in my view is appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure one or more previous discussion agreed that EFM rights are removed at the same time as sysop if EFM was self granted. They ought to normally keep it if they had it before sysop and reason for desysop doesn't itself merit EFM removal. Can't find the discussion though. -- KTC (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big part of why I did it. It had been self-granted a decade ago, only logged changes to their "personal test filter" for about two years, and, in my opinion as an administrator, the reasons given for the desysop and from a checkuser were more than sufficient to indicate lack of trust in the position. I may well have treated a different situation differently. At any rate, the policy at

WP:EFM says that a request for discussion or removal of the user right may be made at the edit filter noticeboard (emphasis mine). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally the ArbCom clerks procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures) do mention that additional notifications may have been warranted here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though the section it appears in does seem to be not "in general" - @

AGK: any thoughts on that? In any event, removal of EFM isn't a bureaucrat responsibility per se. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:EFN during ArbCom desysops, such that an administrator could review the situation and process removals if needed (assuming it was not already an arbcom remedy from a case). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I think that makes sense, but I don’t think we need a formal process if an admin who is competent at such things notices it at WT:ACN and actions it then. They can always request it back. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

■ 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:EFN when If the desysopped editor has self-granted edit filter manager rights, post a note to the edit filter noticeboard for review as listed on the clerk procedures. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Will follow up on this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks (as it's not really a 'crat matter). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

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.

Per the final decision of the arbitration committee linked above, please remove the sysop bit from Rama (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log).

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Xeno beat me to the click. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

Was moved. 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Moved to

Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

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.

Resysop of Fram

Fram has been unblocked. I see no community consensus that the administrative user rights of Fram should have been revoked. Can anyone think of a reason the user rights should not be restored without delay? Alternatively, restored following the standard 24 hour hold period for commentary? –xeno^talk 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Fram is still technically banned from en.wp. The actual T&S ban has not been reversed yet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is unblocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A block is different from a ban, and you know it. He may be unblocked, but any editing he did here would immediately be seen as a violation of the ban, and the last thing we want at this moment is for WMFOffice to escalate this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not a 'crat any longer but there was nothing offered by even the near-silent WMF that suggested Fram abused the tools. The desysop wasn't under a cloud, so a technical re-sysop is just natural. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is currently banned from enwiki, per the office action. If a bureaucrat were to restore the sysop flag at this point, that may well lead to a de-cratting. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to restore rights,

the 24 hour hold is not the major issue as Fram remains office-banned. You would be acting outside of any established norms. Maxim_(talk) 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, Fram should be re-sysopped in 23 hours time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There is nothing normal about this situation. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:Office actions#Secondary office actions.

In extremely rare situations, the Foundation may become aware of circumstances and information regarding major breaches of trust performed by Wikimedia functionaries or other users with access to advanced tools that are not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons and therefore can not be handled through existing community governance mechanisms. In some of those cases the abuses reported may not rise to the level of irreversibly expelling Wikimedians from the communities; however, they may be severe enough to have breached the community’s trust in the individuals involved and therefore warrant removal of administrative rights. Removal of user rights are usually either permanent or long term. Rebuilding trust is not impossible, which is why individuals are encouraged to reflect on their actions leading up to their advanced rights removal and consider how they may best serve the communities moving forward. In situations of long term removals, and once the no-rights period has elapsed, a contributor may have to fulfill additional criteria before they are permitted to reapply for advanced rights; those are made known to them at the time of the removal of advanced rights.

Reversing an office action out of process is not something that [is] not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons. And, reversal of an office action that has broad community opposition is not breach[ing] the community's trust. There is no grounds for an office decratting here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge Fram is currently under a WMF Ban, and access removal was an office action. So summary restoration is out of line of the bureaucrat mandate. Additionally, as the access removal was clearly not for inactivity or voluntary, an RfA should be required to ensure community support, following the prohibition period of the ban. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of your knowledge, Fram was banned for a year yet has been unblocked. To the best of your knowledge, you have absolutely no idea why Fram was de-sysopped, so to mandate another RFA is complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are technical measures that may be used to enforce bans, removal of blocks does not negate a ban. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering. The community have already summarily ignored an office action by reinstating Fram's editing ability. You're just lawyering ("technical"? What?) to avoid hard questions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The 24 hour hold certainly should apply; bureaucrats should not be hasty in heated circumstances such as these. Unless the WMF re-blocks Fram or issues a new statement, I see no reason he shouldn't be re-sysoped tomorrow.

π, ν) 20:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

While I agree with TRM, I understand if no crat wants to stick their hand in this fire and I dont think you can reasonably hold it against them if they stay away from this. Its also functionally a grey area in that the crats are elected by ENWP community to enact the decisions of the ENWP community in an impartial manner. Restoring rights that have been removed as part of an office action *but have no backing from the community* is clearly not something that has any real precedent here. The removal was not at arbcoms or the communities request and we generally as a community dont *want* crats to start getting creative - crats mandate is not to act on behalf of or for the WMF in any sort of dispute. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there were a situation where allowing a little time to pass might make the consensus clearer, this would be it. I myself would wait until it is clear whether the community consensus will prevail regarding the block itself. Uninvited Company 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UC)

Agree, additionally I'd want to see a response on-wiki from Fram (which would also indicate that they are willing to violate their WMF Office ban). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not willing to take any bureaucrat action on Fram's account either way until the situation is resolved. Resysopping Fram is also not supported by the relevant policy, and there's no precedent to draw on. It's not for the bureaucrats to set precedent by acting unilaterally. For now, I think it's better for the situation to become clearer before acting. --Deskana (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that this it is too soon for 'crats to be taking any action here, irrespective of the various arguments for/against re-sysopping. Let the dust settle, and give WMF a chance to respond to the recent unblocking. There's no point in discussing a resysop if there's going to be a wheel war about the unblocking.
talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Both the block and the desysop were
WP:OFFICE? In the past, the Arbitration Committee has threatened to summarily desysop administrators who modify office actions, see [1]. Any bureaucrat seeking to resysop here, 24 hours or otherwise, would put themselves at risk to losing their bureaucrat access. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, the reason why it's being mooted is because the community has agreed that Fram should be unblocked, and has been. There was no reason given as to why he was banned in the first instance, so retention of his sysop status should be natural (as a c.f. I was blocked while retaining admin rights). Why is this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some technical considerations, the executive summary is that no one cares enough that blocked admins can still do some admin things to fix that leak. See my talk. –xeno^talk 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. There has been no indication that Fram has warranted a desysop. But I'm now seeing how the game goes. He's unblocked but still "banned" which means that if he dares edit, the ban will be lengthened. He didn't abuse his tools once. Amazing. Way to go WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office actions are
explicitly outside of the control of community consensus. Procedurally, we can't overturn their action no matter what our consensus is. It's quite dictatorial, but this is what it is. Resysopping would still be reversing an office action. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Can't say I blame the 'crats for not wanting to act here. In fact it would be outside of their remit to be "activist" and re-admin Fram without a mandate to do so.

However I completely disagree with the contention that Fram needs a new RFA should they be unbanned. The local community had no say in this process, and there is no indication he has lost this community's trust to handle the tools. That is the only reason to require a new RFA. Vague handwaving at secret evidence that as far as anyone knows has nothing to do with admin tools does not make this under a cloud by any previously accepted definition.

talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. Until WMF actually get round to telling us why they decided to desysop Fram, this is just a purely cosmetic desysop, made by a few people in California. There's no cloud. As soon as any ban expires, Fram gets to be a sysop again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ban will expire in 1 year, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For every desysop of Fram there should be someone willing to re-sysop again. They're not going to desysop everyone. That would cause irreversible harm if they did that. But they'll always be those who consider their admin rights to be higher than their morals. Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm with Beeblebrox on this. Fram, though he may be a bit strident and controversial at times, has not generally lost the confidence and the trust of the community as a whole. Should he be reinstated as an administrator, it would be best done without any sort of RfA or pseudo-RfA process. Of course, given the standing ban, etc., I would certainly not fault any bureaucrat for taking no action at this time; or, once action is authorized (or independent action is taken), implementing a 24-hour hold. All the same, when all's said and done, I do wonder who shall be the courageous. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Going to agree with Beeblebrox here; absent a motion or determination by Arbcom that Fram's tools should not be reinstated at the end of whatever is going on at T&S, there is no valid reason not to return the tools at the end of that time, should he request them. If Arbcom believes he no longer meets the requirements to be an admin on this project, then they need to bite that bullet themselves. We have a community desysop process - it is via Arbcom. While I would never counsel the bureaucrats on this project to deliberately rescind an OFFICE action, once that action has expired, I can't really see a reason why the tools would not be reinstated upon Fram's request as of this writing. (And given the fact that almost nobody on the T&S team or the chain of individuals who are involved in OFFICE action decisions are actually in California and in many cases aren't even in the US, I think it may be time to let go of that canard.) Risker (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "SanFranBan" rolls off the tongue so nicely... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Desysop request

Please remove my sysop flag. Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate if someone could pull EFM too. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done that for you. –xeno^talk 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: I'm not sure if you meant to, but you pulled extended-confirmed. MusikAnimal had already pulled EFM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as an error, thank you for the ping. –xeno^talk 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone going to remove checkuser and oversight? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently on 24 hour hold on Meta. Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update Mz7. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop (Ansh666)

Hi crats, please remove my administrator rights. I'm also going to waive my right to automatic resysop - I'll run another RfA if I want to come back. The only userright I'd like is autoconfirmed. If you have any other questions, please contact me at user talk:ansh.666, as I'll be blocking this account once this edit is saved. Thanks, ansh 666 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your service. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]