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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	159	0	0	100	Open	00:35, 15 June 2024	2 days, 6 hours	no	report

It is 17:55:36 on June 12, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Bureaucrat mailing list

Do we still need the mailing list? It was arguably useful for processing privacy-related rename requests. These are now sent to the global renamer mailing list. All we now seem to be getting is spam and complaints about admins, to which replies are sent directing people to the correct noticeboard. All of our business can - and should - be discussed on wiki, so I propose that we now close the list. WJBscribe (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The only usecase I can think of is someone wanting to disclose a privacy-sensitive issue about an RfA candidate. This is rather rare. –xeno^talk 14:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

All in all, unless there is a cost associated with it, I'd rather have it even if unused than not have it and one day find out a use we'd have needed it for. Plus, we never know in the future what else it may be needed for. It can still be useful to discuss RfX closures (even if not currently used for it, as I understand). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a boring mailing list, we did use it once recently for non-public information about a resysop candidate. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So the issue is just a lot of emails being sent to y'all through the mailing list that shouldn't go there? Instead of getting rid of it, perhaps it should be converted to a members-only list with messages from outside the list of bureaucrats and functionaries (since they may have good cause to email) requiring approval by someone in charge of the list? That way you at least cut down on the spam reaching every bureaucrat's inbox. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a broader issue. FWIW, I have long been an opponent of mailing lists, and would prefer we didn't use them unless absolutely necessary. My main reasons being:

• Transparency. They create a temptation for people to have private conversations that should be had here (e.g. RfX closes as Salvidrim! mentions). This temptation is magnified where decisions are likely to be controversial, which is exactly when I think they benefit from more outside scrutiny; and
• Security. The main justification for these lists is private information, but they are extremely insecure. Messages get sent to every subscriber on the list, so the failure point is the weakest/pwned password of any of the list subscribers. Plus the list archives are available to future subscribers of the list, so the sender is trusting their information to unknown people who may be given access to the list in the future.

I should flag that I have always opposed this mailing list, which I wish had not been created. I had hoped that, now we no longer handle renames, we might be able to do away with it. WJBscribe (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have zero opinion on this, but I do have a question. People who want a rename sometimes email arbcom or arbs thinking we can do it/are the right place for it. Awhile back I tried to fix some of the on-wiki documentation about this, and removed a suggestion on one of the relevant pages (I forget where) to email the crats. A crat suggested I leave it in, because many local crats are also renamers and the list is smaller than the global renamer list, so a sensitive request would go to fewer people and they'd all be familiar with the enwiki context. Is the crat list no longer receiving, or handling, these requests? Is there an enwiki-based-renamer list? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no enwiki-based-renamer list, just a global one. We do very occasionally receive emails in related to renames, and crats who are also global renamers will action such requests if appropriate. As far as I can tell, the bureaucrat mailing list has only received 3 rename-related requests since May 2016: on 1 December 2016, 7 October 2016, and 4 June 2016. My personal opinion is that the best way to get an enwiki global renamer you trust to carry out a sensitive rename is just to email them personally, bypassing the risk of mailing lists. WJBscribe (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the vanish requests these days come to the steward OTRS queue rather than the global renamers list (and I guess this one). Agreed that personally contacting a renamer that you trust is the best way for sensitive requests. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I have personally never been a fan of having global renamers (or bureaucrats) handle right to vanish requests or other privacy-related renames. The role of the bureaucrat dates from well before Wikimedia's policies on handling private information (think CU/OS) and even today we don't generally factor "handling of sensitive information" into global renamer nominations. For what it's worth, the list is archived indefinitely and is much less secure (and even crats who are removed for cause still retain access to the emails that they received). The best option is contacting the stewards OTRS queue and asking them to handle the request. --Rschen7754 01:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like that's best. Though I will say that, before I got involved in (for lack of a better word) wikipolitics, I would not have specifically trusted or even really known any stewards or global renamers. So the suggestion to personally contact someone would probably have resulted in a random pick, or whoever's first on the list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that renames are handled globally, I have no objection to shutting down the mailing list. It arguably served a purpose that no longer exists. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no problem with closing the bureaucrats' mailing list, either; of the work we have to do, all of it can be discussed on-wiki. Acalamari 12:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I may have been one of those behind its creation. It has no good purpose any more and on reflection WJB was possibly right even when it did have a purpose. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I am happy to abide by the wisdom of my fellow bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Keep list

1. Keep for the limited purpose that information not suitable for on-wiki may be handled related to resysop satisfactions "that the account has not been compromised" or for certain messages from arbcom related to such. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Keep for the reasons presented by Xaosflux. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete list

1. Per the transparency and security issues I outlined above. We don't need it. WJBscribe (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Per WJBscribe --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Crat Bias

User Cecropia fails Activity requirements last action in 2008 and one self request for return of tools this shows it.User:Cecropia Can the learned ones say where he meets activity ? Similarly User:Useight is allowed to retain tools on basis of alternate accountbut admins like Gustafson are kicked out. .I can see arguments for doing it both way but there should only one rule for Crats and Non Crats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your message reeks of bad faith but treating it on its merits, Cecropia last edited just a few month ago, so doesn't fall into the community-defined inactivity standards. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fails Crat activity requirements think passes Admin norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The very broad parameters at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts are subjective but my interpretation would be that this would not be an issue for another six months or so. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Learned Dweller which is the precise edit which makes Cecophia meet activity ? He clearly fails to meet it. Further User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson lost his tools while Usersight has his tools.I can see arguments for doing it both way but there should only one rule for Crats and Non Crats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.38.117 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round, you'd need to show how he "clearly fails" to meet the requirements. I have no idea what those other people have to do with this discussion. And we do have different rules for bureaucrats. If you think this is A Bad Thing, whether or not that is because A Bad Thing happened to Jeffrey O. Gustafson, you'll need to establish a consensus of Wikipedians who agree with you. Someone else might helpfully point you to the last discussion where the current activity requirements was agreed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this may be helpful to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dweller did reach out to Gustafson in 2014 but to my knowledge didn't get any response one way or the other (Mr. Gustafson archived the message to history). If User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson had asked for an Useight-like exception, surely it could have been granted. –xeno^talk 16:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• WJBscribe and I briefly discussed Cecropia here. A more recent edit from Cecropia arguably meets the requirement of "signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureaucrat tasks". –xeno^talk 17:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed, it seems to me that Cecropia signalled his intention in the manner required by the policy. I have a vague recollection of being against that provision in the policy, but it's what the community agreed. As to Mr Gustafson, his rights should not have been removed and I said at the time that they ought to be returned. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  And slightly further into the discussion, I said this. I stand by this today. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yep, I think what we disagreed on (and presumably still do) is whether he should have been made to ask. My word wasn't actually good enough for you to reverse the desysop, after all. But this all happened long ago, and I doubt Mr Gustafson would have returned to admin activity had the permissions been restored. WJBscribe (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'll admit to having bias. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks to User:Dweller for giving me a heads up, and all my bureaucratic friends for doing some research and actively defending me. I'm not sure why my participation on Wikipedia is of current interest to the complaining user, but I do want to give a little explanation if I haven't already. Quite some years ago I found that I had to return to full-time work for the usual trivial reasons of keeping body and soul together, supporting my family, and keeping us in our home. And I'm still doing that well into retirement age. I love Wikipedia and am amazed at the way it has matured and become a real, competent and detailed encyclopedia.

That said, I would love to "keep my hand in" with at least occasional 'crat actions in preparation for more active duties but, though I was an active participant in some of Wikipedia's formative years in helping to set standards, I am well aware that some of these standards have evolved; not to mention some of the new Admins duties that popped up, as well as new 'crat responsibilities. ... Or ... TL;dr: I want to be sure I know what the hell I'm doing in 2017 before I start throwing my 'Crat Bit around. Best to all - Cheers, Your Cecropia (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#March 2017

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

1. CJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Oldelpaso (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
6. Xnuala (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
7. Modemac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I recognize the names of some excellent admins in there. Hope they return. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting resysop

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

After having thoroughly enjoyed not having to touch the tools for 2,5 years, I'm also feeling more and more the limitations of not having them. I would like to request reinstatement of my sysop, so that I can more efficiently deal with some of the English Wikipedia technical spaces that I often interact with. My desysop request was here .—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Subject to the usual 24 hr wait, I'd be happy to resysop you. Glad to have people of your calibre, with or without mops. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• No concerns, welcome back. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Been 24 hours and no problems. Welcome back, TheDJ. :) Acalamari 21:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Captcha not working

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.

---

Not that I really mind, but over the past couple of days the captcha for IP editors does not update properly. Tonight it is "glibhaber"-- every time.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not much the crats can do about this. I've cross-posted this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Captcha not working where you're more likely to get a useful response. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks! I was not at all sure where to report such a fundamental problem.104.163.140.193 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2017 (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.