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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 18:38:02 on December 4, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

wikien-bureaucrats archives

phab:T162068 is queued for deleting the old mailing list, wikien-bureaucrats. We were not clear about what to do with the old archives, without an active list any more I'm in favor of having them purged - some of the comments on the original discussion referenced privacy concerns. Does anyone have any need for these to be retained - if so for what period? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any reason to keep them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an archivist (and a bit of a hoarder) at heart and I've saved every significant e-mail that I received or sent since 2005, so the thought of flushing the entire wikien-crats archive almost pains me physically. Can't they be preserved as read-only? Can't they at least be saved on a page on stewardwiki? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why stewardwiki? That would provide all stewards access to the archives, and it is always possible that the two enwiki bureaucrats could no longer be stewards or bureaucrats at some point in the future. --Rs chen 7754 18:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "default" behavior will be that they are still archived, however with the list gone adding / changing archive access would no longer be possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resysop request (Doug Bell)

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

I'm not very active, but I'm still a good citizen. I'd appreciate having my admin rights restored. My account has never been compromised. —Doug Bell 17:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-bureaucrat comment) According to Special:Log/Doug Bell, you last used your sysop tools on April 4, 2007 (over 10 years ago). While there is no procedural reason to deny this request, do you really need the admin tools? --Rs chen 7754 17:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary admin tool I'd like restored is the ability to view deleted pages. Unless I become active again doing admin things, I don't see a requirement for the other tools. However, I'm not sure I see a need to remove my access to the tools... —Doug Bell 02:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a lot has changed over the last 10 years: RevDel, semi-protection/extendedconfirmed/template editors, BLP, verifiability, Checkuser blocks, semi-protection, 2-factor authentication, global accounts... It would be like a police officer from 1850 trying to do the job today. They may have been well-qualified then, but not today. Also, viewing deleted content is another reason why to remove the privileges from mostly inactive accounts - if the account were to be hacked, it is a security concern due to the potential leak of data. Would your use of deleted content be improving the encyclopedia, or be merely to satisfy an intellectual curiosity? --Rs chen 7754 02:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I always try to push back on this meme when I see it: I actually did disappear for about eight years, during which most of that stuff was developed, and one of the single most surprising things about the "modern" Wikipedia is how insistent everyone is that everything has changed so much. It's like the opposite of the lobster-in-a-pot problem. Speaking from experience, there is actually surprisingly little that has changed about the core of how the project works. Anyone who did any significant work after the early post-Seigenthaler evolution of BLP should be well-placed to catch up very quickly. (Actually, your list skipped two things that are a lot more salient on a day-to-day-experience basis: rollback was unbundled, and pinging is a thing now.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible how much has changed over the past ten years. And if this were a user who hadn't been involved with this project for ten years, you'd be absolutely correct in questioning whether or not they're qualified to use the tools today. Except Doug hasn't been inactive for ten years. Ten years is an arbitrary number you came up with from his last administrative action. That tells you one thing: the last time he performed an admin action that appears in the log. It doesn't tell you the last time he looked at a deleted article. The last time he visited AN or AN/I, or looked at new tools/policies or guidelines. The last time he edited an article or contacted someone on their talk page. Or, really, anything else. Everything else is an inference you're making based on assumptions. If the community trusted him to show restraint and learn about things he may not know about back when he got the bit originally, I see little that has changed since then to suggest he wouldn't use the same care today. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've been here for well over 10 years, and I'd say the period is more notable for the things that need to be changed but haven't been. I can't think of anything significant that's changed that any intelligent person can't pick up relatively quickly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat note: Your first edit in 1.5 years was to return and ask for the admin rights. Is there an admin or crat that you know who could verify that you are indeed you? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux is the only bureaucrat name I recognize, and we had minimal contact when I was last active as an admin, so I doubt that's of any use. I guess I don't know how to prove I'm me, even if I knew a current bureaucrat. I guess you can either accept that it's me or not. —Doug Bell 02:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. a short while back there was a concern about imposters stealing stale admin accounts. You went inactive right after I got started. Dloh cierekim 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a current admin - maybe someone you have previously exchanged email with? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Committed identity or verification of your previously known real-life identity would likely also work (though I guess "Doug Bell" might be a pseudonym). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Doug Bell" is my real name. Coincidently, there's a short bio for me, Doug Bell, on Wikipedia itself. —Doug Bell 17:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone has really mentioned this, but Doug has only been desysopped since December of 2016, a mere five months. It's not like he hasn't been admin this whole time since his last action. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should probably just give Doug back his admin bit, unless there's a reasonable reason not to assume good faith here. Andrevan@ 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#May 2017

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

ThaddeusB (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Yandman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Bjarki S (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
OldakQuill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Shyam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin desysop of User_talk:😂

Archiving this until the WP:RFCN#😂 discussion is complete. We can reopen this once that discussion is done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please note that User:😂 has requested a desysop here. As this avoids the normal attention of the 'Crats here, I am notifying you for your tracking records. Should this be considered resigning under a cloud? I think so for the purposes of a future resysop.--v/r - T P 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, totally a cloud! 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 16:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. I think not 'acceptable for an administrator' is rather missing the point. It could be argued that it is not acceptable for an editor. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Agreed, thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, since the meta request was declined, I'm formally requesting it here now. Please revoke my adminship with extreme prejudice against ever requesting it again. 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do wish you'd reconsider. You don't know how badly you'll miss the old mop till you no longer have it.16:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Nah, who needs it? 😂 ^{[omg plz]} 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the discussion looks like it might be turning - at least wait to see how it ends up? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose having drama spill over onto WP:BN. I don't suppose User:crying smiley would be willing to step back from the edge of the cliff for a little while? Until, say, the RFC/N thread actually concludes? If not, then (a) desysop immediately because of this request, but (b) there is no cloud, and the user can request re-instatement at any time if either (i) it is decided the name is OK, or (ii) they change their name, or (iii) some other solution is suggested by someone when everyone has had a chance to think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't care about the username. But the quickness it went from "Give me what I want or I'm quitting" makes me happy to show them the door.--v/r - TP 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, I've supported their username at WP:RFCN but this request is ridiculously pointy behaviour for any user, let alone an administrator. Either the username is acceptable or it is not; being an administrator has nothing to do with it, you won't get to keep an inappropriate username because you resigned the bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This may be relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3. --Rs chen 7754 18:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clear and conspicuous request for a desysop "with prejudice". They've been asked several times if they wish to reconsider. I say just remove the bit and walk away, that's the best way to avoid the drama, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.