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	12
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 22:39:21 on May 23, 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)

• Awkward --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 14 March 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)

• Reference ticket from creation, can be used as model if we need to delete: phab:T20006. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 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)

   @Nihonjoe: I think the "deletes" are gaining consensus here - and I'm considering closing this discussion in that favor (as I was the opposition don't think this is COI) - do you have any other specific objections? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   That's fine. I still think it's dumb to get rid of a potential tool just because it's not used as much anymore. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   I think if we were to keep it, we should turn on moderation to stem the flow of all the spam. –xeno^talk 18:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   I'm fine with that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Keep, but enable moderation. There are some rather rare usecases, but it would be better to have around for such times. –xeno^talk 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   Moderation would require one or more of us to actually work the moderation queue - are you a volunteer for this? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   My vision was that if someone was sending a message to the queue, they should notify us on the noticeboard. –xeno^talk 19:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   I think I already do that. I get message almost every day and pretty much always tell the system to delete them (since they are almost always spam). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:17, 14 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)
3. Per WJB. Honestly I completely forgot said list existed until now. Wizardman 23:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
4. It's pretty much useless now; it's filled with spam and I seriously doubt that any of us on the mailing list are in desperate need of more spam. And again, there's hardly anything - if there's anything at all - that can't be discussed on-wiki. Acalamari 17:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
5. Agree it can be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Global renamers

Hi Everyone, I was recently doing some work at WP:PERM and noticed that a user there was recently renamed through usurping another username. That in and of itself is not odd however in doing some digging I noticed that the user who had their username usurped by the user I encountered was renamed to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" which seemed odd as in the past I have always seen a user who is usurped renamed to "x username (usurped)". Doing some digging it appears that a number of users have been renamed to nonsensical usernames such as "Renamed user 5417514488", "Renamed user nnnnnnnnnn", etc. Further, some of the usernames that have been renamed to seemingly random usernames have made nontrivial edits which per my understanding makes them ineligible for usurping. Additionally it does not appear that they were locally notified with {{Usurpation requested}}. As I cannot see the full reasons for the renames I presume some of these renames may have been RTV however I wanted to drop a note here as I find it concerning that with with a nonpublic log some of these renames are almost impossible to piece together and seemingly in conflict with my recollection of our prior local practice. Mifter (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be WP:RTV. --Rschen7754 05:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the extraordinarily fast reply. I expect a large percentage of the requests likely are RTV, but I am concerned that by using nonsensical names (I've seen a number of "Vanished User 00000" used over the years to indicate RTV as opposed to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" or "Renamed user nnnnnnnnnn") combined with a nonpublic log it is impossible to piece together if it was RTV or a usurpation. If our goal is to be transparent then we are falling well short of it. In this case the first user "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" was renamed from "MilkGames" to "Renamed user gfhsahdyvw" and less than two days later "MilkGams" was renamed to "MilkGames". That looks like a textbook usurpation to me but with a nonpublic log I cannot be sure, which is why I am posting here as from what I can see, it looks like our policy/practices may not have been followed. Mifter (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The log is public, the requests aren't. In this case, the rename of MilkGames to the gibberish name was a vanishing request. The subsequent rename request was done without reference to the first, though I assume it's the same user. All renaming is global now - if you have a concern with how this is now done across all WMF wikis, the appropriate place to raise those concerns would be Meta. Bureaucrats no longer have any technical role in renaming. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the quick reply and clarification. I was doing some more digging through the log and it appears that those few remaining requests that come through a local process generally have a link to the diff/permalink where such a request was made (even in cases where I would argue it is discussing a somewhat sensitive matter) which provides public information about the rename. Was there a community discussion (or at least a notification/rationale) about why we moved from a predominately open log/process (with obvious common sense exceptions where needed) to an almost completely closed one somewhere along the line? Mifter (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I'm not sure. I can't remember ever reading a justification for why the global rename request queue is private. I would personally have no objections to making it public, since privacy-related requests are directed to email. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• We stoped using "Vanished user nnnn" because it was totally counter to the goal. Usurpations done via the enwiki process should almost all be of the form "(usurped)". Your first example may have been a user requesting their own account renamed or it may have been out of process, either way, it was not done via enwiki mechanisms. –xeno^talk 13:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

See Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Adminship following a clean start. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

De-admin please

Dear Bureaucrats, I don't currently have time for Wikipedia activies, so in keeping with my position that admin tools should be limited to those who actually use them, please remove my admin flag. I'd like to hope that I'll have reason in the future to request it back, but I can't promise that. Best wishes,  — Scott • talk 15:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)