Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bradv (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 6 May 2019 (→‎Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    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 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
    HouseBlaster 138 12 6 92 Open 00:50, 23 June 2024 22 hours no report
    It is 02:24:51 on June 22, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Thanks

    I'd like to thank Amanda (and any other crats who I might have missed) for her clerking at the current RfA. As recent events have shown, RfA is an important responsibility for the bureaucrats team and having crats rather than sysops or even editors (as had recently happened) be the ones to clerk feels like it is in keeping with this group's role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree entirely and I’m glad that DeltaQuad is being proactive in this area.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it is something that has been needed for a long time, and 'crats in my two cents should be administering it. If we want to change some of the level of toxicity of RfA, then this proactive enforcement is needed by the 'crat team. Whenever there is an RfA, I try to keep tabs on it as much as I can with life, so I'm at least aware of what is going on. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree wholeheartedly, both with you and with the giving of thanks. I think a quick hand is called for, if only because others may take action in the absence of 'crats. It's unfortunate, but clerking has been done by editors, sysop or otherwise, which is not ideal to say the least. Any port in a storm, sure, but it's shaky ground. It's nice to have 'crat hands. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree as well. Proactive clerking has long been desperately needed at RfA, and while any user can technically do this, most avoid it to avoid getting embroiled in the toxicity of RfA. Thus, it naturally falls to the 'crats, who hold the only position of authority at RfA to speak of. It is a travesty that the crats have traditionally neglected this role, and I hope that the fresh blood can continue to bring some much needed change. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a good idea, and something I'll make an effort to keep an eye on in the future. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely welcome to have more of this. Now, if only we had more RFAs, too... GABgab 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, throughout all the investigations and analyses of what's wrong with RfA, none of the suggestions for clerking met even with sufficient consensus of the work groups to start a formal RfC on the subject of clerking. Moreover, significant opposition was raised by other users who claim that clerking is not explicitly within the mandate of Bureaucratship. Exacerbated by the long time it takes for closures to RfA or getting a 'crat chat together when required, this seems to demonstrate that not many Bureaucrats are as active as they once were. I welcome the rare and recent promotions to Bureaucrat in the anticipation that this may now change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the clerking is a good idea in theory but I'll put on my cynic hat. If we collectively as bureaucrats start clerking/policing RfA more, it would be make it more difficult for us to also be dispassionate RfA closers. Bluntly speaking, we'd be "clerking" the oppose section more than anywhere else, and when it would come to a borderline RfA with or without a crat chat, there would at least be a perception of impropriety. I'm not sure we have enough crats where you'd have a couple "clerking" to leave enough for a chat if that was needed. In terms of active crats, I do closely follow RfAs (I guess RfBs too on those rare occasions) despite not actually making edits for weeks at a time. I'll review them quite frequently, especially during the first couple of days. Maybe there are other lurker-crats too. Maxim(talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Broadly agree- Every RfX goes on my watchlist; I follow them closely even while not making edits; I try to avoid most participation, though do clerk where necessary and not already handled by another community member. (Also Kudpung- long time for RfA closure?! I think you’ll find most RfAs are closed the minute they expire or slightly before - though I am always happy to have fresh blood on the team, carne por la machina). –xenotalk 14:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactive admins for May 2019

    The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

    Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 10:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graham87: Shouldn't this be labeled May 2019? March 2019's was on March 1, and the other April 2019's was on april 1 --DannyS712 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DannyS712: Ooooooops, yes it should! I've fixed it. Graham87 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks to all for their service. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeltaQuad: please inform these users of your removals. You can use the template at Template:Inactive admin. — xaosflux Talk 15:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, done that also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting for the record that EWS23's last logged admin action was in 2012, and thus he appears to be ineligible for resysop under the current rules. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Resignation request for deadminship

    Please remove my administrator rights. I haven't had time or need for tool use in forever, and that doesn't seem likely to ever change. Consumed Crustacean (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log). Cheers! -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Thank you for your past service. 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions concerning bureaucrats and dealing with compromised administrator accounts

    There are multiple discussions ongoing at WT:ACN and WT:ADMIN concerning the role of bureaucrats with respect to resysoping individuals whose administrator account was compromised. Maxim(talk) 13:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions at WT:ACN concerning administrator account security and restoration following compromise

    There are ongoing discussions of interest at WT:ACN concerning administrator account security and restoration following compromise, bureaucrat comment has been invited. –xenotalk 13:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Xeno: which section should we keep? :D Maxim(talk) 13:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! Well I started typing it an hour ago or something :p –xenotalk 13:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Redundant section is redundant. ;) —DoRD (talk)​ 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a nutshell, is anything actually changing as far as our actual current practice? My current read is that if your access is removed by an arbcom motion it is creating "a cloud" and we won't give it back without an arbcom motion/ruling (which removes the cloud) or a new RfA. - which is really the status quo. — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, nothing should be different on your end; only change was ArbCom saying that they might not automotion regranting of perms to previously-compromised sysops. Not that that diminishes any value in the discussion concerning bureaucrats; you've all certainly been mentioned, if by policy rather than name. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the more relevant question is, should we authorize bureaucrats to remove the permissions of obviously compromised admin accounts, and then return them when informed that the owner has re-secured the account? I'll note in passing that Arbcom depends largely on the information provided by stewards and WMF Trust & Safety; checkuser isn't usually all that helpful in confirming this information. Frankly, it looks like (just from a workload perspective), this should be a no-brainer; 'crats have time, they're usually reachable, can act immediately as individuals, and arbcom needs to dig up a minimum of three people to make their desysop motion. Plus...at least in the current policy, you already seem to have the authority to do so. Risker (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe pulling the rights in a compromised account situations remains in the province of IAR, no? A precious RFC and the recent RFAR speak to it. –xenotalk 23:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed

    An arbitration case regarding Enigmaman has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

    Enigmaman (talk · contribs) is desysopped for repeated misuse of administrative tools and the administrative logs, inadequate communication, and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities of administrators as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

    For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Enigmaman closed
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=895779275"