Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	9
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Voorts	153	13	5	92	Open	21:06, 8 November 2024	10 hours	no	report

It is 10:11:11 on November 8, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Userrights Gnangarra

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.

---

Gnangarra (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log), please remove all extra rights from my account as a follow on from my resigning from Wikimedia Australia and the Wikimania 2020 committees I will be further winding back my outreach activity and involvement with Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement, given that my frequency of contributions will significantly drop I believe that holding the admin bit is no longer necessary. Gnangarra 05:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done for you, Gnangarra. Wow, you became an admin in November 2006...just after I started editing! Thanks for your long service and best wishes to you. I hope you'll return someday. :) Acalamari 07:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

On 13 March, I mailed a case about Gnangarra to the Arbs, involving the unblock of someone they personally knew without even checking this with the blocking admin (who they accused of making a pointy block, even though the blocked person had repeatedly posted copyrighted text), and which included them clearly breaching the WP:OUTING policy. Because of the outing, this had to be done privately and the evidence was oversighted, so I can't and won't link to it here. Is this case ongoing and should this resignation be considered to be "under a cloud"? Fram (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard to ask a question of Arbcom on, especially if it involves suppressed edits that the vast majority of us can't see. I suggest you ask those questions of Arbcom. They are the ones in a position to rule whether this resignation is under or over a cloud as a result of your allegations..... ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, an unequivocal statement from arbcom that Gnangarra has, in their view, resigned in good faith would settle the question; as, equally, would their unwillingness to do so. ——SN54129 11:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom only decide if the downing of tools was 'under a cloud' in a situation where they have an open case/by motion. All other situations its the crats who decide - at the point where tools are re-requested (WP:RESYSOP). Functionally unless anyone notified crats of the situation, tools could be re-requested in 2 months and no crat would think to object. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

An open case can be an in camera case, so it would be absolutely correct for ArbCom to clarify if one was in process/intended. And per WP:CLOUD, Ultimately Bureaucrats and Arbcom make such judgements, not crats alone. In any case, the point really is that Fram was doing the correct thing, from the community's standpoint, as there is now a papertrail for them to follow if, as you quite correctly point out, Gngaraa does ask for the return of their tools in two months. ——SN54129 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Quite obviously not, accused does not equal guilty and an administrator subject to in camera procedures cannot be declared to be resigning under the category of "under the cloud" until such procedures are reflected on-wiki (via an ArbCom case/motion, community consensus). --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, thats not the policy via WP:RESYSOP: which only requires that crats determine the resignation was to avoid scrutiny. Not if they are guilty or not. Or even likely to be guilty. Which is not within their remit to decide anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes... I'm aware, but quite obviously the crats don't have absolute remit in doing so, I'm naming when they usually will. Policies only make sense when applied in context to real situations. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hopefully a crat will clarify this soon but my understanding FWIW is that determinations of being under a cloud happen if and when the user re-applies for their tools. There’s a limited benefit in trying to thrash this out now. P-K3 (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Several times over the past while (one could say established practice), the determination has only been made at the time of resysop and threads like these are repeatedly told the same thing. The initial comment about the arbcom issue for the record was fine, but any cloud discussion is later, not now, unless you want ArbCom involved - then go to them for the answer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed; I believe established practice has also often been that a crat has closed these discussions up with an {{atop}}/{{abot}}, because people have a hard time letting go of this kind of discussion without that help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified the committee of this thread and the change in userrights, and can confirm the committee acknowledged an email from Fram on March 13. –xeno^talk 14:43, 22 April 2020 (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.

Retirement of administrator User:Anna Frodesiak

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 this diff, Anna appears to be retiring but may return someday. I suggest that admin rights be removed from her account, with the understanding that they may be restored if she returns. ↠Pine (✉) 06:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If Anna requests that her admin rights be removed, then we'll remove them. Until then, she will lose them under the usual inactivity requirements should she remain inactive. Acalamari 07:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

They are slated to have their admin rights removed due to inactivity on 1 May, in a little over a week's time. Stephen 08:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

See my post on Anna’s talk about a year ago. She’s in mainland China, which has blocked Wikipedia. Her heartfelt position is that the People’s Republic of China has given her so much and that she in good conscience can not break their laws by using a VPN to access Wikipedia. She knew that if this lasted a year, her admin flag would be removed. This retirement likely is her just letting people know it’s been a year so not to expect her back anytime soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Is enwiki still blocked in China then? I was dealing with an abusive IP which resolved to China Mobile only recently. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that all versions of Wikipedia are blocked in the PRC. IP geolocation isn’t exactly a science, and if someone’s using a proxy or similar it may appear as a legitimate ISP even if the individual IP is being used to evade detection. If you want a rant, ask me on my talk page about residential ISPs in Eastern Europe where we also have a similar phenomenon. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's a shame. Such a silly reason to lose a valuable contributor. I sort of expect China to open up more at some point, as its citizens become more affluent and clued up, but who knows when that might be!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"More affluent and clued up"? ——SN54129 14:29, 22 April 2020 (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.

Cecropia wants to remain an available bureaucrat

Thanks to Xaosflux for reminding that I must make known my availability to remain a Bureaucrat.

As some of you, I severely diminished my work about a dozen years ago because I found I had to come out of retirement to keep body, soul and family together. I'm still working full-time (at home now during the epidemic) but still hope I'll be able to resume being useful to the Wikipedia community.

Best to all, your Cecropia (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)