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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 08:08:01 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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). --

At the very least, it probably should be an {{

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)[reply

]

Maybe fixing CRAT is the better place to start. --

old fashioned! 11:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I amended my text above. I started the essay. Others improved it. Notably,

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)[reply]

I agree it should be upgraded. In pursuit of avoiding

• 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)[reply]

An RFC is ongoing to advise bureaucrats on weather forecasting pertaining to Fram-related resignations: Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#RFC:Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud? –xeno^talk 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:FRAM page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

”I thought it is at the discretion of the crats whether to resysop or not, and they make the determination on whether someone was under a cloud at the time the request is made.” True, however bureaucrats still consider advisement from the community on such matters. My intent was to draw attention to the discussion to ensure that it receives wide participation. I am somewhat concerned that those who do not share the opinion of the current majority will be hesitant to weigh in. In future, such RfCs should probably be held at the talk page of the relevant policy (in this case, it would be WT:Administrators. –xeno^talk 13:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section has already been archived. Besides, unusual cases make bad precedent. UninvitedCompany 13:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC ran for less than 24 hours? Should be re-opened. –xeno^talk 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, also I think the audience of the WP:FRAM page is likely biased and framing some specific cases in a general term that I think is mostly irrelevant to the overall premsise: namely that for most of the former administrators that have recently resigned, there is no "cloud" concern at all. When all that was involved in a resignation was a I'm upset at the foundation type statement that accompanied most of the resignations, that alone doesn't rise anywhere near the "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status" brightline. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. see the "Gadfium" section above - is was a rather routine and "boring" request - the kind we like! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I took it as referring to the bold few who performed unblocks myself, and answered it on that basis. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I thought that was obvious enough from the title: "Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud?" However, the RFC should probably not be taken too seriously concerning future resignations of this type, if any. Hans Adler 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per xaosflux, I don’t really consider that page to be neutral. I’ll go ahead and state that while I don’t think most of the people did, it needs to be case by case. In my view WJBscribe certainly resigned under a cloud if you look at the circumstances surrounding his resignation, and an overly broad RfC on a page that’s going to be sympathetic to everyone involved shouldn’t somehow absolve him from making the extreme violations of community trust he did that required other bureaucrats to overrule him. Someone resigning with an active ArbCom case, a recall petition, and other crats overruling an abuse of advanced permissions pretty squarely falls under “controversial circumstances” even if every other administrator doesn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Intreresting opinion. Thanks for being so open. Hans Adler 14:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am in sympathy with their motives, I agree with Tony. Unfortunately I fear the point is likely moot. My impression, and I hope I'm wrong, was that WJBscribe left with no intention of returning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the RfC question is valid, I'm with Tony in thinking that the Fram page and Fram talk page is not a appropriate location for any discussion regarding policy changes. It is too emotionally charged and there are many editors who are staying clear of the entire subject. It's an okay place for venting but a bad place for making proposals that need widespread participation.

Besides, in the current milieu, I have more faith in a discussion among bureaucrats regarding individual cases than general policy changes made in exceptional circumstances. Over the years, I've seen many discussions here regarding resysoppings in a wide variety of cases and I can't think of an instance where bureaucrats refused to resysop when I thought the former admin should have been. You all have years of considering the circumstances of resysoping and I trust you will make the right decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Liz. In any case, standard practice in these cases is exactly as Liz described: to defer the decision to the time at which the former admin requests resysopping at this page, and the decision will be made by a discussion of bureaucrats. I would suggest that we avoid deviating from standard practice for the reasons above. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially what I was getting at above. Tony has put it much better though. The FRAM page has no jurisdiction to dictate whether the crats should resysop or not. It's fine for them to advise, but the crats should not feel under any obligation to honour the RFC's result.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is advertised over CENT and you might as well say that The community has no jurisdiction to dictate ....... ∯WBG^converse 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that it is advertised, many editors are staying away from the Fram pages. I would give it more credence if it was relocated to the Village Pump or to policy talk pages. The vocal minority of people at the Fram pages does not "the community" make. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People who are in the minorities genuinely (but often mistakenly) believe that there is a silent majority rooting for them. That's a historical trend and there have been quite much research around this locus. ∯WBG^converse 05:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the vocal minority believe that the silent majority is rooting for them. I don't know if we will ever know for sure whether or not they are mistaken. And with that comment, my remarks about this particular point will end. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Only two editors in the current saga (who have resigned ) come under a cloud or contraversial circumstamces .That was precisely mentioned here” I will note that regardless of the outcome of the case, WJBscribe and Floquenbeam resigned under a cloud - as the case was live and both knew this when they resigned. I have no doubt that both would pass a RfA/B in the future, and that should be the way to return to the bits - should they want to. WormTT(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 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
  standard request process .Further WJB's case is even more complex as a an active recall debate was laso open .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm slightly biased, having participated in the RfC, but I'd view it as advisory, and (like the incidents it's referring to) not something that should be considered a general precedent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Opabinia regalis I am puzzled as you were main author of Reversion_of_office_actions 2 .Why did you not include in the motion for restoration of tools ,nobody in recent memory going back to Durova Case or Aitias case that anyone resigned while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her at any stage of the case has had his/her tools returned. Surely you are not saying that crats can return tools without a Arbcom motion.WTT had clearly his opinion right baove your motion.If you feel tools need to be returned particurly to the above mentioned two.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know WTT shared his opinion at the case request, but Arbcom is not the Borg :) I don't find past precedent particularly compelling here, since the whole point of this situation is that it's unprecedented. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I frankly do not like the way that some editors are using the discussion here (at BN) to cast doubt on the validity of the RfC. The RfC is properly listed, so it's not like
  WT:FRAM is some kind of walled garden. If you can make a valid case about what the RfC asks, go there and make it. Don't look for someplace more "friendly" to say what you are unwilling to say there. (And isn't this similar to what got us into the controversy to begin with? Someone appears to have thought that T&S would be a better forum to shop at, than ArbCom would have been.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Walled garden" - Ironically - incredibly - one editor (at least) called it just that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  it's Not casting doubt on the validity of the RFC per se, just noting that (a) the RFC cannot compel crats to act in any way in particular in the hypothetical scenario that one of the admins who resigned asks for their tools back; policy is clear that the crats may take advice from others, but the decision is theirs, to make at the time in question. And (b) that WP:FRAM is not a neutral venue, it is populated in the majority by the section of the community that feels strongly that the WMF's actions were wrong. People with opposing views are tending not to post at that page.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Crats derive their power from the community and apart from pocket-vetoeing the community, crats do not have a right to overrule us. Also, what dataset led you to the second hypothesis? ∯WBG^converse 05:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who is "us". There are differences of opinion on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The simplistic answer is, of course, that "us" is the community. But I think it's important to recognize that Wikipedia's concept of WP:Consensus is that, so long as a discussion has been properly advertised and open long enough, the consensus is determined by those editors who take part in that discussion, and not by hypothetical editors who never took part in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So ... no non-voting "silent majority", then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I resigned on 28 June due to the crisis at the time. I am pleased it seems to be resolving and am willing to serve again, after the customary 24-hour hold. Jonathunder (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go after the standard hold. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment, not directed at Jonathunder specifically, but if you've resigned your tools in protest, requesting them back a week later, while the coals are still hot, and the situation has not been resolved, with nothing but the most cursory possible concessions from the Foundation offered, that's just silly. Acting like your high ideological demands have been satisfied after a few days and no hard results, that just makes you look petty. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's imho a question whether you trust the WMF and ArbCom to resolve this or not. But being optimistic about the process going forward does not make someone petty, it just means they do not share your (pessimistic) assessment of the Foundation's concessions. Regards SoWhy 07:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with SoWhy here, and I very much reject the suggestion that was has happened constitutes "the most cursory possible concessions." But this isn't really the place for such arguments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• assuming good faith, to my inexperienced eyes at least. I wish you'd reconsider. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Welcome back :) I am not at that point (requesting the tools back) yet, but it is quite possible that our protest resignations have already achieved everything they could achieve. Thank you for having joined the protest! —Kusma (t·c) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 (welcome and all :))....I am still sitting on the fence too, but I am rather hopeful we are (back) on the right track. Lectonar (talk)
• Just want to add my agreement that I too think things are moving in the right direction. Like Lectonar I am still waiting a bit, but recent events have left me cautiously optimistic. We have had a very unpleasant family fight. Let's hope that we have moved past the yelling and smashed crockery and are now at the "let's talk this over rationally" stage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can ask to be desysopped for some larger principle or for no particular reason at all. So, as long as the tools were not relinquished under a cloud, they can ask for them back whenever they decide the time is right. It's a personal decision and I'm hoping all of the recent former admins feel welcome to be resysopped if and whenever they choose to ask for the tools back (as long as it is within the standard time limits). You are all needed and wanted! My 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]