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 11:13:01 on November 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

desysop request (Beeblebrox)

Please remove my admin rights, have already asked for other perms removed at meta. For the same reasons as everybody else, but in particular Katherine Maher's utter lack of care or concern for the community she is supposed to be serving. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I wasn't expecting that. Much respect for everything you've done here - you've been one I've learned greatly from. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with regret. Thank you for your administrative contributions. Maxim_(talk) 20:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: Are you seeing this shit ? This is getting scary. At least respond somewhere. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I waited this long because I thought the foundation would see the light and make some move to repair the situation, when instead the CEO is taking a break from jet setting to attack journalists who tried to write about this debacle. I still believe in the project, but the foundation, not so much, and I don't want to work at their pleasure in the climate of fear and discord they have created here and apparently don't care about. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another in a painful series of gut punches. I hope that someone starts steering the ship before it hits the iceberg.- Mr X 🖋 20:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've hit the iceberg, I'm counting life rafts now. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And who's there rearranging the deckchairs???? Maher et al. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These resignations are devastating for our community. I am beyond saddened to see so many editors retiring, resigning, and leaving. If Wikipedia was ever going to have its own version of "Black Friday", today must surely be among the contenders. Mkdw ^talk 21:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for me, too. So as not to keep repeating myself, please let me offer my admiration to every person who has resigned on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^^ What he said. - SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded.- Mr X 🖋 22:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Gosh. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note

I think it is important to clarify that the determination of whether a resignation was made "under a cloud" is not made until a request has been posted for the return of adminship. Policy as written uses "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation" as the standard. The original purpose of the policy was to prevent the use of a temporary resignation as a means to avoid scrutiny. While it has been interpreted to include pending arbitration cases, I don't believe that is necessarily automatic. It depends on the overall circumstances, and the disposition of the pending case. In particular, I do not believe users who resign while making a concession that they believe they were "under a cloud" is necessarily binding, should they make a request for the return of adminship at some future point.

Policy also specifically allows some sort of wider community discussion (but short of an RFA) to take place. As far as I know, this has never been done.

Uninvited Company 21:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that an old ArbCom case did stipulate Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the ArbCom case, it sounds like the "under a cloud" determination is made by bureaucrats when resysoping is requested, not at the time of the desysop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a statement/motion from ArbCom that there will be no cloud for the named parties would make things a lot easier for the Crats, as well as help smooth things over in the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that happening for Will and Floq, given Arbcom's clear deference to the WMF in all such related matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Floq was restoring the status quo by the office, so if it participates and doesn't avoid the Arb case, there is a chance they would back off. Maybe. Will, however, is gone, and frankly, I don't think he cares. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't determine if there is a cloud until later, and as I see it the bar of determining if there were "serious questions" is lower than a consensus of wrongdoing to said questions. Of course, one can avoid most drama here by just using the standard request process. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not go back to the bad old days when, if you wanted to ensure your resignation from adminship was immediate and permanent, you'd delete the main page and block Jimbo? If someone says something to the effect of "please don't resysop me on request if I change my mind later", honoring that seems the decent thing to do. —Cryptic 22:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under a strict reading of policy that anyone by resigning when there's an ArbCom case/request against them put themselves under a cloud. 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 this ArbCom case .This clearly states that the resignation is deemed to be under a cloud or controverisal circumstances unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise and states ( in a motion) that the tools be returned otherwise one has to go through standard request process. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop request Jonathunder

Please remove my admin bit. I've said why on my user page. I think it's best I just go away for a while lest I say or do something rash. Jonathunder (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope we can all get back to how things were someday. I respect your decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with regret. Thank you for your contributions. Maxim_(talk) 23:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop DoRD

Please remove the bit from my account. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. :( I wish you the best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very sad day for the project. Thank you for your service and help. This is a true loss that will be felt. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's real sad. Hope you take the bits back someday. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop request – Deor

I've been less active in pushing the mop around than most, so I won't be missed much. Nevertheless, mutatis mutandis, I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's comments. Deor (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done with thanks for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desysop Request

Honestly, I'm not using it and have blown hot and cold about having the bit for so long that it's no big deal to give it up at a time when the WMF are sticking two fingers up To the community here. I simply don't want to use my free time helping to run a website so they can gather more donations for "stuff". Spartaz ^Humbug!