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, 50

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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 05:31:16 on December 1, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2019#June 2019

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Syrthiss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Flyguy649 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Moink (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that Flyguy649’s last logged action was in 2011 and Moink’s was in 2008, so both appear to be excluded from resysop without an RfA by the five year rule. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Od Mishehu (Level II desysopping)

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion desysopping Od Mishehu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Would a bureaucrat please remove the permissions? For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 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]

@UninvitedCompany: (edit conflict) Note that Wikipedia:Interface administrators#Removal of permissions specifies, as circumstance 4, Upon removal of administrator access, for any reason. and that unlike EFM, only bureaucrats can remove IAdmin rights. However, 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]

@TonyBallioni: regarding the above as well, it looks like after this came up in the past the clerks procedure was not notify 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]

@Xaosflux: Notifications were sent to Od Mishehu themselves and to WP:AN, which I think about covers it. If you were asking because I did not cross-post, it's because the new ArbClerkBot automatically syndicates an announcement. Which is a great help. AGK ■ 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I'm referring posting to 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]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama closed

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]