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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 14:57:20 on July 11, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop request (Fastily)

Resolved

 – Rights returned.

Fastily (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Hi, I would like to request the return of my admin tools. I'm currently focusing on transferring files to Commons, and there have been quite a few times where the bit would have been helpful. Thanks, FASTILY 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Last removal 2012-04-08. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a standard 24 hour hold for comments on such requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• A little background prior to the de-sysop request by the user: In March 2012, an AN report involving myself as the dynamic IP led to Fastily retiring in the middle of the discussion, which then ended abruptly. He had no further edits until the day before turning in his bit here at BN. That was a long time ago, yet very frustrating nonetheless. Rgrds. --64.85.216.10 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it was frustrating, but while I'm not permitted to make the final determination, I would say his resignation was not "under a cloud". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-bureaucrat comment) FWIW, having reviewed the AN discussion and Fastily's talk page archive, I agree with Dennis about the lack of precipitation-bearing sky-based meteorological items above Fastily's head back in 2012. Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Doesn't Fastily's retirement predate any defined notion of "under a cloud" the current policy has? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Nah, the language about resysopping and avoiding scrutiny dates back to at least 2010. (Are you thinking of the 24-hour wait, which is more recent?) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• From my memory, while there were concerns raised about some of Fastily's deletions around the time he resigned, it would be highly unlikely that a desysop or other sanction would have happened. Thus, the tools should be restored after 24 h waiting period. Maxim_(talk) 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Tricky one. The retirement came undoubtedly at a time of controversial circumstances. There had been a pattern of poor judgements from Fastily leading up to their decision to retire and relinquish the tools. Therefore handing in the tools could be seen as avoiding scrutiny, and coming back here after the dust has settled may appear disingenuous. On the other hand although there was a developing pattern of poor decisions, it was not egregious and was unlikely to lead to sanctions unless it persisted. Taking a break was clearly the best decision for Fastily and we should not discourage editors from taking a break when they get stressed. So I have mixed thoughts on this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  Martin, could you please provide links to other criticism of Fastily's actions prior to his resignation? I'd like to understand why you say that "the retirement came undoubtedly at a time of controversial circumstances". WJBscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  See the link the IP posted above. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  I understood Martin to be referring to other criticisms (reflecting a pattern of poor judgments) in the run up to the resignation, which is why I asked for links. WJBscribe (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  You'll find further references here -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  In 2012 I attempted to take on a massive volume of work, more work than I could comfortably handle, which ultimately resulted in lower quality contributions and burnout. I won't be making that same mistake again. -FASTILY 03:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fastily's resysop request should be granted, as it is both compliant with policy and accompanied by a rationale. Although not required, a commitment on his part to avoid the sort of deletions that were controversial in the past would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't know Fastily from a bar of soap. However a read through the AN thread doesn't suggest the subsequent resignation meets the definition of "under a cloud." The specific G6 may have been a bad call, but everyone has made at least one of those. Support restoring the tools, and wish them all the best with their toing and froing with Commons. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an unusually high level of apparently uninvolved community comment on a resysop request. May I ask what has prompted it? *Is Fastily just a particularly well know (former) admin, or is there another reason for the level of interest in this request? WJBscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the level of comment directly stems from the IP's post of the AN thread that preceded the resignation, implying the potential existence of a cloud. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Came here because BN is watchlisted and wanted to read what NYB had to say. Added my own view in the grand Wikipedia spirit of the peanut gallery. Plus it's mildly more interesting than most resysop requests, which are pretty clear on the "clouds v no clouds" criteria. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is why we voted in the 24 hour clause, for the 1% of the time there may be questions. At the end of the day, it isn't a vote and the Crats have the final say but it is good to get input so they can make an informed decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I know this is not a vote, but I have a comment and must reveal a bit of bias, because Fastily has been very helpful to me. I've had some involvement in Commons issues where Fastily has been active. There's a lot of back-office stuff that needs getting downdone that doesn't get a lot of press. Fastily does a lot of it. I've had several occasions to need some help on some tricky issues and Fastily has been extremely responsive. I don't know any of the details about issues they have had in the past, but my impression is that the explanation is exactly correct; Fastily wants to work on some image related issues involving transfers between Wikipedia in Commons and on occasion would find it helpful to have the bit. I see no reason why this shouldn't happen.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I think part of it is that Fastily was desysopped on Commons for cause. But I see no procedural grounds to not restore his adminship here. --Rschen7754 02:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Count me as one of the 'crats who is comfortable restoring the bit. I was a participant in the AN thread linked above, and while I (and some of the other editors) had some concerns, and the possibility of a RfC/U was floated (back when we had such a thing) I think at worst that would put it at "half a cloud." It would be a different matter if there were an active RfC/U or arbitration case at the time, but there wasn't. (It's pretty common for people to step away from the tools for a while when they're feeling under siege, and I would hate for us to somehow punish that instinct. Breaks are good.) 28bytes (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Admin bit has been twiddled. Welcome back, Fastily. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY 07:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that my views on this are now academic and I don't criticize Nihonjoe for returning the tools - I understand why he came to the view he did & the other bureaucrats who commented (28bytes & Maxim) supported returning the tools. But because I am mindful that these decisions can be taken to set precedents, I think it's worth noting why I don't agree.

I'm left with an uneasy feeling about this one and would have preferred a bit more discussion. I'm troubled by the Commons desysop (although the policy has never really dealt with the issue of controversial circumstances after the resignation), and by 28bytes' suggestion that there was potentially "half a cloud". I do not think that there has ever been a consensus to limit "controversial circumstances" to being an active RfC/U or arbitration case - otherwise the policy could simply refer to resigning whilst there is a pending ArbCom case (or similar). It is to my mind sufficient that there was a sound basis to bring such a case. I also don't agree with the idea that it's a good thing for "people to step away from the tools for a while when they're feeling under siege", which sounds to me like avoiding scrutiny. People can take a break from editing (in which case those with grievances can still pursue the matter further) but I don't think we should be encouraging resignation in these circumstances, by saying that such resignation will not be treated as precluding automatic return of the tools. It is one thing if the rights are requested back fairly soon, so that those with grievances remain able to bring them in the correct forum, but that is not what has happened here.

At the time Fastily resigned, it seems to me that there was enough evidence for someone to have filed a serious complaint with ArbCom about a pattern of poor judgment in his use of the tools. Fastily's admin actions in the first quarter of 2012 were problematic - something that to his credit Fastily appears to acknowledge above, explaining that this was due to having taken on too much and undertaking not repeat the error. That is commendable and may well have resulted in a fresh RfA succeeding. But I remain concerned that the opportunity to bring a formal case is now no longer present (as the issues have become historic). To my mind, this is the sort of situation that bureaucrat discretion as to whether or not to return rights given up in controversial circumstances is designed to deal with. My interpretation of "controversial circumstances" / "under a cloud" would probably extend to this request.

That said, I wish Fastily all the best in his efforts as an admin going forwards. Please don't feel that my views above mean that you don't have my support or that you can't approach me in the future if I can ever be of help. WJBscribe (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful about including Commons activities, pro or con, in determining "cloudiness." It is a whole separate animal, and their cultural norms are uniquely their own. Similar caveats would apply to other sister projects. 28bytes (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons is hardly the wild west. If someone was desysopped for cause on a Wikimedia project, I think that's something we can validly take into account. WJBscribe (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Commons culture is also decidedly different. They desysop "for cause" at a substantially lower threshold than we do. They see the bit more as a position held at the ongoing will of the community, not a lifetime appointment, so a "for cause" desysop there can be for relatively minor things. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this thread yesterday and imagined the 24-hour period would be extended. Fastily has been a helpful hand in the media files departments, where there is certainly a lack of participants, but his administrative actions have always been subject to criticism because his rate of making careless errors is far too high. I particularly remember this incident in 2010, where Fastily deleted a number of pages under R2 despite not meeting the criteria. Some weren't even redirects to begin with, which I pointed out. He went on to retire soon after. Please note that a few days prior, Fastily was subject to a request for mediation, albeit an improper one. Fastily continued to make deletions that were simply wrong, and I pointed those out here in October 2011. I also remember restoring a series of talk pages that were deleted under G8, in spite of them being tagged with {{G8-exempt}} (File talk:SnowballGeography.gif, File talk:Selena-Gomez145.jpg, File talk:Brodeurbook.jpg, File talk:Narnia books.jpg, File talk:Jack LaLanne - Arnold.jpg). This is just what I'm able to pull from my memory at the moment. As a non-administrator, Fastily still shows signs of carelessness. Last month, he tagged various files for lacking evidence of permission without actually checking the sources to verify the license claim (1 2 3 4 5, among others). Simply clicking on the provided sources verified the licenses.

WP:RESYSOP reads: Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions. We'll never know if Fastily would have faced sanctions if he didn't resign in 2012, but under no basis can one decide that it wasn't a possibility when evidence suggests the contrary. One can't ignore the behavioral pattern between each instance where Fastily's actions are brought into question and his decision to step away from the admin bit. — ξ^xplicit 04:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Explicit. The decision has been taken and the tools regranted. The Crats have no power to undo our decision, even if every single one of us wanted to. For that reason, (and sorry if this sounds harsh) if you don't like the decision we've made, there's no use complaining here. Your next port of call is probably Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Meta discussion

WJB, moving away from the specifics of Fastilly's request, is there something we could change procedurally that could help in another similar situation? Do you think we ought to revisit some definitions? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[peanut gallery comment] Maybe clarify the meaning of "scrutiny" and/or "sanctions"? Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions talks about evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions: most people here seem to be interpreting that as "evading a situation that had a reasonable chance of losing their tools", but the language is technically much broader than that; it doesn't specify loss of tools, just generic sanctions. It also doesn't say evading the sanctions themselves, but scrutiny that *could* have led to the sanctions. All in all, the language is much more broad than the way people interpreted it in this case. Not that that's necessarily a problem, just that there's a mismatch. The language at WP:ADMIN#Restoration of adminship is even more broad; it just says not in controversial circumstances, which could mean virtually anything. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we revisit what "under a cloud" means? There seems to be a lot of bureaucrat and non-bureaucrats who offered fairly different interpretations. In terms of considering other projects, I think that's out of our purview. Different projects can have very different norms. Commons has had users who have failed RfA here or are not in good standing on enwp that have been chosen admins. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- all projects have their own way of doing things, and such arrangements are either valuable second chances or work out because an editor gets along better with the community of a different project. If an arrangement works for a specific project, it's not for me to tell them it's bad! Maxim_(talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've always hated the term "under a cloud" and have always interpreted the issue as being a situation of possible/probable sanction where a reasonable person would view the resignation as serving to avoid said sanction. The sanction may not be the full removal, but is certainly stronger than a wrist-slap. Avoiding potential blocking/topic banning would probably count as a sanction as well. -- Avi (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've interpreted it similarly, meaning a sanction stronger than an admonishment or warning (inc. block/tban/iban/bit). Of course, you can only use your best judgement as to the likelihood and get input informally from other crats, like a Crat chat. That already seems to be the natural course. In the end, if there is a reasonable process, the community is going to stand behind you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My view, which I hope I have applied consistently in the past, is that predicting the outcome of a potential RfArb (or similar) takes things one step too far. If concerns have been raised that an ArbCom complaint could have been brought based on sound evidence, controversial circumstance exist. For me, that is the end of the process. I don't think bureaucrats have then been asked to consider - if the matter had come before ArbCom - what the outcome would have been. WJBscribe (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I agree that if the issue is at Arb, that means at risk of bit. To me, it doesn't have to be at Arb to be "under a cloud", and I suppose we are asking you to know/guess common outcomes at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should define "under a cloud" rigorously because any firm definition will undoubtedly fail to account for some obscure type of sanctioning situation. Better to leave this to the bureaucrats. I think they interpreted things reasonably here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• To use the above discussion as an example: The administrator was the subject of a discussion at a noticeboard for their use of administrative tools in a manner which people found problematic. There was no resolution because the administrator resigned their tools mid-way and so conversation stopped. Unless any clarification is specifically to state this behaviour is explicitly under a cloud, there is no point in trying to define it further. If resigning your tools while your use of them is being questioned is *not* under a cloud as it has been interpreted above, then whats the point of having the 'under a cloud' anyway. It certainly wasnt under clear blue skies on a beach sipping a fucking mojito was it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't see that discussion as having had the possibility of having the tools removed. Therefore, I don't see his request back then for removing the tools to be "under a cloud". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically no discussion anywhere except by Arbcom has the possibility of having tools removed as that is a right they have reserved for themselves. So are you saying unless an admin is actively under investigation by Arbcom they will never be under a cloud? Because that would certainly be one way to define it further. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Jimbo still have the power to remove adminship? Of course I doubt he'll ever use it except possibly in an emergency, so it can probably be considered a lapsed power. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:JIMBO, he can do whatever he wants, but controversy always seems to follow him. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want an exhaustive list: Jimbo can desysop with appeal only to himself or ArbCom; the WMF can desysop with appeal only to itself; the sysadmins can desysop with appeal only to themselves or the WMF; and the stewards can desysop in cases of emergency or IAR. And in addition to the bureaucrats' de jure desysop powers, there's unchallenged precedent that they can desysop to self-revert or to revert another crat who's consented to it, and can desysop in cases of emergency or IAR. But most of that's pretty obscure. The general statement "only ArbCom can order a desysop" is true enough for most intents and purposes. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's a reason we don't use the term "under a cloud" in our procedure page, instead having criteria that are somewhat clearer, as explored by Writ Keeper above. That said, WK has correctly noted that the criteria are rather broad ("could") when interpreted in a particular way (perhaps moreso than was intended by the writer) and it probably makes sense to seek community comment in the form of an RFC to see exactly the boundaries we should be using in such cases. I would also point out that the WP:RESYSOP procedure draws it's power from the policy page Wikipedia:Administrators which (again, as noted by WK) has even broader boundaries ("controversial circumstances") that if taken at face value, would have precluded restoring privileges in the present case. I'd suggest removing the "under a cloud" language from the policy page as too vague to be of use and reconciling the procedure page with the policy. –xeno^talk 00:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not a crat chat always for a re-sysop request?

• If we have bureaucrats being provided a 24-hour period to decide whether to grant a re-sysop request or not, then I suggest that the re-sysop request be changed to the format of a crat chat, where bureaucrats get to discuss on one page for 24 hours and more and concur on the step forward, while the community discusses on the talk page. That would be a clearer consensus development process than such a discussion. Lourdes 11:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  There is already a 24 hour mandatory waiting period to allow feedback from the community. The overwhelming majority are non-controversial, so forcing a Crat chat would be overkill. Since instituting the 24 hour period, I can't think of a single instance of a truly controversial resysop. This example above is probably the closest thing and I fail to see how it is truly problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  There have been a few where there was dissent. I agree that it's overkill to mandate one; if one's needed, it could be useful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'd leave it open that any crat may open a 'crat chat for something that needs additional consensus building, but requiring for every request is overkill. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I have two queries. Because I don't know, is there a policy or guideline that allows any crat to open a crat chat in any situation that requires additional consensus building? Is it clear that the current re-sysop has been done with consensus? Thanks. Lourdes 14:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  We don't need a policy or guideline to help the Wikipedia users probably most interested in uncontroversial consensus find consensus - I think it'll just happen if we feel we need it. On your second question, no crat is making a fuss about the current resysop. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  I might add that I don't think consensus is required, just like at WP:AE. Any Crat is free to act within the guidelines given without requiring other Crats agree. Considering the position and the tasks, I think this is the right way to handle it. If a Crat can't be trusted to act within those guidelines, they shouldn't be Crat. No additional policy is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's also true. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

debit

I don't need my admin bit anymore, please remove it. I don't need any additional bits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)