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

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

WP:BN
WP:BNB

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 05:44:38 on May 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Review request

Is there any way to have an RfA reviewed? It is frustrating trying to edit without the tool kit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I'm not sure what you are asking us to do here. Bureaucrats only close open RfA's, of which there are none currently. If you would like feedback on your own likelihood of passing an RfA you may want to try WP:ORCP. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he wants a review of his last RfA's crat chat. I don't think there's any precedent for that, nor do I think that a review would produce a different result in this case. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Ajraddatz I would absolutely oppose attempting to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat from over 2 years ago. The best path to appeal old unsuccessful RFA#2 would be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 3. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That path is not open, so far as I can see. RfA#2 was not unsuccessful; it was closed with no consensus from the bureaucrats. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Theoretically, you can challenge a crat chat closure, or any other RfA closure at WP:AN, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. But you can only challenge the closer's reading of consensus, not appeal the result itself (this goes for any discussion). Your crat chat was unanimous and wouldn't be overturned, obviously, so you'd have to make a new RfA. As long as you show that you've been able to respond positively to the previous opposers, though, it would reflect very positively on you, and your last RfA was very close as it is! Swarm ♠ 02:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: "It is frustrating trying to edit without the tool kit"— then how the hell do the rest of us manage :) anyway, you don't need a toolkit for this—just ability and dedication. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had to lodge a WP:RM to get an admin to move the top one from my userspace to the mainspace over a redirect.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I have to be honest. The very fact that you posted this is likely to prejudice some people against you at another RfA, because it looks a bit clueless and desperate. Given that you were close last time and probably have improved on tings people were critical about last time, that's unfortunate. I would suggest (as a non-admin who doesn't want the bit, but who hits every RfA I see come up) a close read of Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and waiting 6 months or so, so people mostly consider this odd review request to be old news. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”RfA#2 was not unsuccessful; it was closed with no consensus from the bureaucrats” is such a flawed statement that it probably torpedoed the chances for at least another year. Not seeming to know some fairly basic stuff was what led to the desysopping in the first place, so this weird challenge to what is a clear and obvious result is going to reflect very poorly on any new RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The chat was unanimous, I'm not sure what there is to appeal. In the chat, you were given some advice as to specifically what the issues were that prevented you from getting the tools, and how you could focus your behavior and on-wiki activity to address and overcome those issues. Asking out of the blue for an unprecedented overruling was not one of them, -- Avi (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be a bit terse now, as subtle comments haven't seemed to work. Hawkeye7, I personally hope you do regain your admin tools some day, and they do not distract from the consistently excellent MILHIST work you have put in to the project. However, repeatedly asking about it is not going to make it happen; you need to wait until somebody asks you. I can't help thinking this request has come off the back of Sro23's RfA, because at the ORCP a few months ago you were not particularly keen on him getting the tools. So this sounds like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: FWIW, this section was started well before Sro23's RfA. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I can construct a good-faith explanation for how Hawkeye7 might have been confused based on how the ARBCOM de-sysop language is structured; perhaps we should close this discussion while this is still the case. Hawkeye7 knows where RFA and ORCP are, and nothing else good will come of this thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the frustration of no longer having the tools if you were once used to them, but I echo some of the comments above that your complaint is likely to irritate. If you don't edit about this between now and then and we're both still editing, drop me a line in Jan 2019. If I'm satisfied you've addressed at least some of the concerns raised at the last RfA, I'll nominate you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Standard Offer to me ;) bloody generous and a good idea all round. Yo Hawkeye7, what say you? Only one condition too—keeping stumm about the (recent!) past! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#July_2018

~~The following inactive administrator is being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.~~

Topbanana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Topbanana made edits to the article Marion Marshall (author) on 8 August 2017, which were later deleted after the article was proposed for deletion, thus they didn't technically qualify to be resysopped until this September. However I don't see the point of re-sysopping them since we'd probably have to desysop them again in another two months. Graham87 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazier things have happened, and two months is two months. Bit should be restored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the bot not check deleted edits, then? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bot would need admin privileges to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Thanks for calling this out - will track it under it's own review, as the deleted edits were "edits" they do count so I've restored access. As far as "2 months" go, we don't have to only do these on a certain day of a certain month, can reprocess anytime on or after 20180808. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: I'm restoring it now and will leave them a talk message. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Email for Bureaucrat role account

Does anyone (perhaps Angela?) have access to the User:Bureaucrats role account? It has an email enabled, but as the mailing list was deleted I imagine this is no longer desired or useful, and likely was simply never removed after the deletion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I've no idea what the password was and it was set to the mailing list's email address so I can't retrieve the password. Angela (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the devs could recreate the mailing list, do a password reset, remove the email, and then redelete the mailing list? FWIW a dummy test email I sent around 45 minutes ago hasn't been bounced back, so either it's going somewhere or having a no-longer-valid email address leads to silent failure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be easier for the devs to disable email on the account? Regards So Why 14:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. They could also presumably just reset the password as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the edit notice at Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats to warn anyone attempting to use this that it is no longer watched. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that since User:Bureaucrats doesn't have an edit it won't receive emails regardless per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Contact role accounts --Majora (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it won't receive them anyways as the ML doesn't exist. What about usurping the account? Seems quick, clean, and easy. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think usurping the account is the best idea. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can usurp the account if that's the desired direction here. Note that it now requires tboverride rights to re-create a renamed username, so if another 'crat wants to re-create the account and put some notice that it's obsolete they can. Or the username could just be left unregistered. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not using that account for anything, do not have any directions asking anyone to use it, and have noted on the email page that it will not be monitored. I'm not really seeing what the need to do anything here is. Is there a current actual problem that needs resolving? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Users can still e-mail a role account whose destination e-mail does not exist and Mediawiki would still tell them the e-mail was successfully sent. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something that should be raised as a bug on Phabricator so that it can be fixed properly rather for the general case (presumably it will apply to all users with email addresses that don't exist, not just role accounts) rather than fudged for this case individually. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: as far as the software goes there is no such thing as a "role account" that is just something we made up on-wiki. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: well - actually there sort of is, but this is not an example of it, there are accounts that designated in configuration such as User:MediaWiki message delivery. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Indeed, which rather strengthens my point. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: am I understanding that what you want is for the developers to create a new classification of user all together (establish "role accounts") for various purposes? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying that developers should fix (or at least be made aware of) the problem of mediawiki reporting emails sent to non-existent addresses as being successfully delivered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: as far as I can see we do not report the delivery status of any email. In MediaWiki:Emailsenttext we say that we "sent" the email. Due to the batch nature of Internet email confirming a delivery is never possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Hmm, that is a point, but delivery failure notifications are a thing but are not exposed to the user. I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this (automated message on the talk page of sender and recipient?) but whether it is or it ins't possible this discussion would seem better suited to either phabractor or VPTECH than BN - which was the other part of my original point. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: agree, not really a BN item, feel free to copy/move that part to VPT. Note, this is a global issue, not a "role account" issue (e.g. any user can have a broken email address). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple is better. Couldn't one of you crats with the global rename permission just rename User:Bureaucrats to User:There is no longer a bureaucrat role account so don't send email to this address, and then recreate User:Bureaucrats with no email attached? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Wait. That's what "usurp" means, isn't it. I'm not the genius I (briefly) thought I was. Although I don't understand why this hasn't been done yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put a usurp request in at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a usurp request is necessary - there obviously won't be any response from User:Bureaucrats, so why bother with the bureaucracy? Just rename User:Bureaucrats to something random and recreate User:Bureaucrats. —DoRD (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]