Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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	1

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 08:47:57 on October 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

De-adminship request for mikeblas

I wish to resign from Wikipedia adminship. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't recall if there is a cooling off period for these - I don't think so. But FWIW, I'd suggest Mikeblas withdraw this and wait a few days to make sure this is what he wants to do, and to make sure he understands the implications of resigning now. Nowhere in the ANI thread was desysopping discussed, and the issue doesn't involve the use of admin tools. But there is still a risk that this would be considered resigning under a cloud, and resysopping in the future might not be considered automatic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not "there is a risk ... this would be", but "this will be with absolute certainty". Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolute certainty based on what? Unless I missed something in the admittedly sprawling AN thread, no sanctions appear to have ever been suggested against Mikeblas and certainly not desysopping, formal warnings or anything of the like. Wikipedia:Administrators is pretty straightforward about this: Former administrators may re-request the admin tools subsequent to voluntary removal or removal due to inactivity. The request is granted unless one of these situations applies (snip...) The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud". If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed. Can you show me where the appropriateness of Mikeblas status of an administrator is currently being brought into question? A consensus of administrators saying "don't do that in the future" does not constitute "a cloud" under the current definition. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

In my case, the appropriateness of me being administrator was not brought into question either, but when I asked for the restoration of status, a bunch of users suddenly remembered that they wanted to open an Arbcom case against me but never said it because I resigned the tools. That was good enough for several crats to think I resigned under a cloud. The Murphy's law pretty much guarantees this to happen. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that background, but that doesn't sound like an appropriate example of "under a cloud" either. In any event, two wrongs don't make a right; while we can't predict the future, if such an "under a cloud" discussion were to arise, I should hope my objections here are noted by the 'crats. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether resignation occurred under a cloud is only determined at the time of a request for readminship is made. Any links and comments left at the time of the request for removal of the tools are solely for the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request, which will form the basis of the crats' decision at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything under the restoration of admin tools section of WP:ADMIN that states that it's "only determined at the time of a request for readminship". Is there some subsequent policy discussion or other consensus where that was decided? If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal seems quite unambiguous that it is determined at the time of resignation or removal, not at the time of requesting readminship. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh? That whole section is about what happens when readminship is requested, and cloudiness and similar terms are not mentioned elsewhere, determination at any other time is meaningless. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're not seeing about this. WP:ADMIN states that The request is granted unless one of these situations applies: -- meaning that requests are automatically granted *unless* an exception applies. The exception in question here states: The admin tools were removed while the administrator was "under a cloud". It then defines that further: If there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation or removal, the request will be referred to WP:RFA. In doubtful cases, re-granting of the tools will be deferred until a broader community discussion takes place and is closed.. At the time of his request for desysopping, e.g. right now, there are no serious questions about the appropriateness of his status as an administrator. So per the plain written word of our policies, there is no "cloud" that he's under -- a hypothetical request in the future should be automatically granted. So I'm asking, what is the policy basis for the claim that somehow this cloud status is decided at the time of requesting re-adminship? That's not supported by the WP:ADMIN policy. I see it mentioned in the essay WP:CLOUD where it appears to have been added by Dweller unilaterally amidst a broader discussion "under_a_cloud"-2020-11-28T18:26:00.000Z here for which I do not see a consensus-based formal closure. So unless I'm missing something, there appears to be no policy basis for suggesting that Mikeblas will have to request re-adminship. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding when the circumstances of a resignation are evaluated: it's basically just the operating procedure. Requests to restore administrative privileges are made to the bureaucrats, so they're going to determine when a request is made if the criteria are met. Now if the community decided to spend time to reach a broad consensus that the resignation was made to avoid scrutiny of their actions, I don't think the bureaucrats would ignore it. But many editors feel that their time is better spent waiting until a request is made before making a case for this motivation, rather than spending time speculatively. (As seen in the discussion to which you linked, there are editors who think otherwise.)

Regarding this specific case: personally, I don't see how scrutiny is evaded by resigning as an admin. The issues in question are unrelated to the admin role, and discussion about them can continue as the participants desire. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I should ping @Mikeblas: to make sure he sees this reply before it is actioned. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to post something similar. I would certainly expect discussion about the ANI thread (and related thread on their user talk page) to occur should you request a resysopping and that will likely at least delay restoration while discussion plays out. Whether it will be determined a blocker is not something we can (or even should be attempting to) predict at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While I'm sure we all want Mike to consider his actions here today and to consider whether there was a real reason for them to do this, they've been an admin since ....(checks notes) two months before this old timer made their first edit, so I should think we should already expect them to have deep knowledge of policies related to adminship. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, this is one of those situations (not as rare as they might be, unfortunately) where even if we de-tool an admin, we are not actually losing an admin. As noted above, Mikeblas has been one for 17 years; in that time they've made ~150 logged admin actions. So, with such a lack of hands-on experience, a concomitant lack of policy knowledge is not so unexpected. Still, on a lighter note, their content creation is second to none, which is more than can be said for many. SerialNumber54129 22:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you meant ~150 logged admin actions? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Yes indeed. Changed. SerialNumber54129 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

When this discussion comes to a conclusion, please let me know -- at that time I'll have full information to make my decision. Meanwhile, I hope it's clear that I'm not resigning to try to evade any judgement, scrutiny, or responsibility. (Or, maybe waiting for the ANI discussion to close will make that clearest. But I don't know how it gets closed.) Also: thanks for considering a cooling-down period. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

While it looks like both this discussion and ANI thread have come to natural ends the one on your talk page seems to still be ongoing. I'd recommend waiting until all three have concluded before making a final decision though so it's unambiguous that if you do choose to resign you aren't trying to evade scrutiny and, should there come a point where you rerequest the tools it's clear to those commenting at the time how they played out. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: (Wrote this at the same time as the above comment by Thrydululf) As the ANI discussion about your edits did not really involve your status as an admin, nobody was proposing any sort of formal sanction, and the discussion has basically fizzled out, I don't think it is reasonable to say this was resignation under a cloud as there was no chance you were about to be removed involuntarily. The ball is still entirely in your court as of right now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like Just Step Sideways and Thryduulf are offering conflicting interpretations of policy on this matter -- unless I'm misunderstanding them. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of the issue there is that there is no exact procedure for determining such a thing. I saw Thryduulf's comment about letting the discusison on your talk page run it's course but I don't personally think you need to do that. You did not avoid scrutiny, you clearly chose to go ahead and engage and respond to criticism, even if some of those criticizing you were not satisfied with your replies. And this wasn't about your admin status and did not involve use of admin tools. There doesn't have to be a stated reason for an admin resignation, you can hand in your tools for any reason you like and you are not required to disclose what that reason is. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As JSS says, there isn't a policy on when or why you can request deadminship. There is policy that 'crats can't automatically readmin someone if they resigned to avoid sanctions or escape scrutiny of their actions, but no formal definition of what counts as doing either of those things - obviously there are some situations where it is abundantly clear either way, e.g. if there is an arbcom case active or there are no discussions about your actions anywhere, but vast swathes of grey between.

I suggested waiting, not because you need to wait (again JSS is exactly right about that) just that if there are no discussions about your actions at the time of requesting a deadminship, it is completely unambiguous that you are not resigning to avoid scrutiny of actions. It is not impossible that someone will think the discussion on your talk page is relevant to your adminship (c.f. WP:SUPERMARIO), but how likely this is is difficult to say - if your request readminship in 3 months time then it's going to be very extremely improbable, if the request is in four and half years then who knows.

Ultimately though the decision on if and or when to resign adminship is yours alone. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Piping up, as I was named, Isaacl is right. That's just what we do. No returning administrator should be able to say that their resignation was not 'under a cloud' because nobody said it was back then. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The policy at WP:ADMIN is quite unambiguous that this determination is made "at the time of resignation or removal". If nobody spoke up back then, by definition it wasn't under a cloud. The purpose is to prevent people from resigning to avoid scrutiny of their actions -- not to retroactively exclude administrators if nobody felt their actions merited scrutiny in the first place. If "that's just what we do", that indicates we have a problem with out-of-control 'crats that needs to be urgently addressed.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That passage isn't saying that the determination is made at the time of resignation or removal. It's saying that if there were questions about the admin's status at that time, then administrative privileges cannot be restored on request. isaacl (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Those questions *are* the determination. It's the same thing. Administrative privileges are an automatic "must restore" *unless* one of the exemptions apply. The exemption here is that, "at the time of resignation or removal", there were "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator." I understand that in this case we all seem to agree those questions don't exist. I'm speaking to statements like Whether resignation occurred under a cloud is only determined at the time of a request for readminship is made. Any links and comments left at the time of the request for removal of the tools are solely for the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request, which will form the basis of the crats' decision at that time. which imply that this is somehow a discretionary decision for 'crats to make, or that we allow subsequent discussion at the time of the *restoration* request based on the concern that somehow "nobody spoke up" about a concern they may or may not have had at the time of desysopping. That's the part I'm taking issue with. In the event that "nobody spoke up" at the time of desysopping, then there were by definition no serious questions raised about the appropriateness of their status as an administrator. Thus the exemption does not and cannot apply. And even if there had been some questions about their fitness, and the exemption did apply, the policy states that the matter goes to WP:RFA. Either way, it is a completely brightline scenario without any room for "the benefit of those commenting on the readminship request" or for 'crat discretion on the decision. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Since my concerns here are purely generalized and have nothing to do with Mikeblas specifically, so as not to prolong anything or confuse anyone, I'm going to bow out of this for now and end my line of commentary here in the interest of letting this section die out so he can desysop in peace. I can raise my generalized concerns with the policy language on the policy page.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We're discussing slightly different things, if I understand correctly. Yes, any questions that were present at the time of resignation are what need to be considered. The consideration can take place later, though, to avoid spending time speculatively at the time of resignation. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

any questions that were present at the time of resignation are what need to be considered. The consideration can take place later, though is exactly right. The determination is made at the time of the readminship, the determination is made based on a consideration of the circumstances at the time of resignation and anything subsequent that is relevant (e.g. activity levels, any behaviour post resignation that could/would have led to led to an admin being desysopped, perhaps edit warring to resinstate copyvio material).

When it comes to the determination the crats have to decide whether readminship should be automatic or only after an RFA. There are three possible scenarios regarding cloudiness:

• It is clear adminship was resigned to avoid scrutiny: The crats must not resysop without a new RFA
• It is clear there was no avoidance of scrutiny and they were in good standing: The crats may resysop after 24 hours (assuming activity requirements are met) but they have discretion not to do so (or to delay doing so) on the basis of community discussion at the time of the resysop request.
• It is unclear whether there was or wasn't a cloud: Crats must use their judgement to determine whether to resysop or not based on the situation at the time and comments in any discussion at the time of the resysop request.

Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Marking this as  Not done for now; mikeblas has not affirmed their desire to have their rights removed. Feel free to re-request if that is not the case. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)