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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 01:12:40 on November 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

CHU/S

An account was renamed a couple of hours ago, but a quick glance at their contributions would have shown that the account was created by a known serial sockpuppeteer. Even without noticing the sockpuppetry, though, it's obvious that the account was up to no good and that it had already been indeffed several hours before the rename. I have seen several instances where this guy's socks have been to CHU/S in the past, as well.

I guess my question is this: Aren't there red flags that bureaucrats should be looking for before pressing the rename button? My intention is not to criticize any particular crat, but I'm just surprised that so much (multiple trivial edits to gain autoconfirmed status, re-upload of an attack image, and vandalism of a CU's talk page and the sockpuppeteer's SPI) could go without notice. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

These days most renames are performed from Meta (by global renamer's centralauth-rename) and I cannot check user is blocked or not on meta's GlobalRenameUser special page. (Of course it is good idea to check centralauth and contribs page before performing rename.) — Revi 17:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, not to put too fine a point on it but renames are now handled by global renamers (some who are local bureaucrats, others who are not) and are subject to the m:Global rename policy as well as local policies and guidelines. (Ping @Maxim: to ensure they are aware of this discussion.) As far as the question, typically there will be some basic checks but sometimes renamers simply accept the bot's assertion of "No problems found" and process right from the page. –xeno^talk 18:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That user tried an end-around, obviously trying to get someone to process the change and not notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is good. As arguably the holder of the "most power" (from a technical perspective) outside of WMF / stewards, it's best if bureaucrats are perceived as boringly non-controversial worker bees. Their role for renames should be to simply evaluate the names, not go digging for dirt. It doesn't actually matter what an indeff'd account name is, does it? NE Ent 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, yes it does matter. I think the bureaucrats have a duty to do any due diligence. Otherwise why do we need this user group of incorruptibles? In a much lower level of the Wikipedia pecking order, as a pure example only, it's by checking on the work of New Page Patrollers or AfD reviewers that when I come across a poor patrol or review I discover socks, POV pushers, and spammers. By your reckoning, NE Ent, instead of digging for dirt, as an admin I should just let it go? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should exercise this oversight and discretion where appropriate as in this case, although I don't think we should penalize anyone for a simple mistake. However since the global rename policy this is no longer within the purview of enwiki, so perhaps we had best have this conversation in the appropriate. It's possible that the policy doesn't include this, although I believe the en wiki policy probably does encompass refusing to rename a sockpuppeteer. If the policy needs to be clarified or improved, that can't be done here. Andrevan@ 08:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure that's correct - for example, last year the en-wiki sockpuppeteer User:Pass a Method was globally renamed as User:North Atlanticist Usonian. But I agree there's nothing we can do here in relation to global renaming rules. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Inactive admins for February 2015

The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

• Waltpohl (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
• Jcw69 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
• Mahanga (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
• Phils (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this here, Graham87, and thank you to all four admins for their respective services. Acalamari 10:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Graham87:@Acalamari: Are we sure that the second notifications were sent for these four users. It's completely undocumented at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2015. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust and Acalamari: I for one didn't get this notification, for some reason; it doesn't seem like they were, but I don't think that's a major issue; if they really want their user rights back, they can ask for them. Graham87 10:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't receive either notification here. At any rate, as Graham87 has said, I don't think it's a big deal, at least on this occasion (it shouldn't become a regular habit). The notices on their talk pages are clear enough as is. Acalamari 18:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tool request

I would like to request my reinstatement as an administrator. My account has not been compromised. waltpohl (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Walt Pohl (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

They usually wait 24 hours to make sure there are no issues. — Ched :  ?  11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no issues here. If no-one objects, the next crat on in 24hrs time will happily return your tools. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Walt Pohl (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller that there is no cause for concern here. Pakaran 03:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tool reinstatement request

Hi. I'm a former admin returning to Wikipedia after a long break, during which my account was procedurally desysopped, so I would like to request reinstatement of the tools. Thanks! --Nine Tail Fox (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Apologies, somehow became logged out during that edit so adding this note to properly attribute. Nine Tail Fox\^talk 18:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You were procedurally desysopped on 1 November 2013, so there have not been 2 years of inactivity after that date. As such, I see no cause for concern with restoration after the standard 24 hour hold mentioned above. Pakaran 03:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Welcome back. Pakaran 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pakaran: Thankyou! Appreciated. Nine Tail Fox\^talk 11:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Stale CHU/S request

Can someone mark this as {{notdone}} so the bot can archive. Thanx :) Mlpearc (open channel) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done By Tiptoety Mlpearc (open channel) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Desysop request

May I request that my sysop flag be removed (under a cloud) per this? The Arbcom has been informed of my request, and the request in return has been acknowledged in personal capacity by two members. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 02:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)