Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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.

Requests to hide usernames which are grossly insulting or contain personal information should not be posted here. Instead, send them to the stewards OTRS queue via meta:Special:Contact/Stewards (or, or contact a steward privately via IRC (#wikimedia-stewardsconnect).

To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 2
CHU reqs 3
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 14
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 20:13:14 on February 18, 2019, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
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

Deletion Question[edit]

Hi. Should Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SabyaC be deleted? See a, b, c, and d et al. for precedent. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: the creator has been around for a couple of years and has 2500+edits, while it certainly seems TOOSOON we have no reason to just delete this, and its not hurting anything. Suggest you have a discussion with the page creator, who can request speedy deletion if he likes. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Resysop request (There'sNoTime)[edit]

There'sNoTime (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

I requested the removal of my administrator bit back in December, and would now like to request resysop. Many thanks - TNT 💖 19:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Less than three. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, what do you mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dweller: Less than three is <3 which is a ❤️ (or, as the case may be, 💖). TB likes TNT, ooooh. ~ Amory (utc) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What Amory said. I typed it out in the edit summary in case anyone was confused, but, alas :) TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. I looked at the edit summary and saw less than 3 there too, just written differently. New one on me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back, there is a standard 24-hour hold for commentary on resysop requests. — xaosflux Talk 20:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Good to see you back. SemiHypercube 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Clever little user back with banhammer, good! (Bishzilla was admin once. Great feeling. Like, royal.) bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 00:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC).
The wiki could use some more cats ~ Amory (utc) 01:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
How about some puppy snoots instead??!?!?! Brown puppy (9899551176).jpg Praxidicae (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No, no more cats! More nuts instead. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There'sNoTime for nuts. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a problem, because nuts make up a large percentage of the editing population. Natureium (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Cat sticking out tongue.jpg
I don't have any nuts, but I do have this cat who's a bit nuts. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Dang it! I was sitting here staring at the clock so I could do this one. Useight (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll be slower next time. :) 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Face-smile.svg - TNT 💖 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Resysop request (Master Jay)[edit]

Master Jay (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

De-sysoped 17 days ago due to inactivity the last year. I have now returned, and kindly request re-sysoping. Regards Jay(Talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? I've no great understanding of how this board works but surely making one or two edits annually around the time that the bit might be lost is gaming the system? And I make it 50 edits in total since some time in 2010 - I don't see how anyone can keep on top of changes to policies and guidelines etc with that sort of volume, even with the recently introduced admin newsletter. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank goodness for those two logged admin actions since 2010 eh :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this. As I understand it, only ArbCom and the WMF can desysop, except for inactivity or user self-request. However, there must be some sort of moral imperative/good faith to the rest of the community involved when requesting resysop after inactivity. No? - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I find no fault with Jay. The community is intelligent enough to pass a proposal requiring one/10/100 logged administrative actions every year, if it wants. And if such a proposal hasn't passed yet, the community has no right demanding anything to the opposite from reapplying former administrators. Lourdes 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Winged Blades of Godric: I suggest you revert this rather mean sarcasm. I'd do it on my own except the 'crats get annoyed when I revert anything here other than pure disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. Removed the last parts and you have my consent to revert; if it pleases you. WBGconverse 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's sarcasm itself to say that was sarcasm?! I don't see anything wrong with it. -- Flooded w/them 100s 15:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It was clearly sarcastic. Not subtly, either. I would suggest snarking here is not helping anyone or anything and if you dislike the existing inactivity policy, go participate in the discussion about changing it. Fish+Karate 15:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As much as I have reverted my post; it's prudential enough to note that Jay's last sysop request contained precisely nil words (in what was commented by a 'crat to be one of the most verbose requests; snarky?).
    With practically nil activity in the last few years; he returns and stakes a claim to his inalienable right just because he has returned. WBGconverse 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Master Jay, as part of your requirement to be accountable for your administrative actions, would you please explain why, as your only two logged actions in nearly a decade, you made the decision to both protect the article for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after a single vandalizing edit, and to also block the IP that made the edit? Could you please explain how these actions conform to current policy and community norms with regard to blocking and protection? Could you also please explain why you felt it necessary to revoke talk page access for the IP, and how this conforms to current policy and community norms with regard to revoking talk page access for anonymous users? Could you also please explain why you did not feel it necessary, when revoking talk page access for an IP, to notify the user of what steps to take to request an unblock, in the case that an unrelated individual found themselves editing on what may have been a dynamic IP?
Could you also provide your opinion, under the same policy regarding administrator accountability, why you feel the community should not see what is fairly obvious and egregious gaming our inactivity requirements as a form of bad-faith adminship, and why an individual engaged in such a pattern of editing should not raise serious concerns that they may no longer enjoy the trust or confidence of the community? GMGtalk 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While it's not a rationale to prevent re-granting the tools, I feel obliged to ask Master Jay whether he expects to be more active in the project over the next 8 years than he was over the last 8 years. If that's not the case, I suggest he withdraw this request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In inactivity resysops, perhaps we need to somehow require, at the least, that the simple question, 'why do you request resyssop' be addressed, so the community can get an idea over-time why this pattern occurs. Also, it appears we can't assume, voluntary forthcoming-ness under WP:ADMINACCT to get this info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Alanscottwalker, I support requiring a basic answer to this. We should require it's posted after a Crat confirms it to prove they'll come back. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I can understand the objections here, existing policy is, imho, rather clear. Essentially I echo what Lourdes said: If you want change, change the activity standards for admins. Lectonar (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome back. If people want to reform the system, they should vote in the RfC, but thus far, the community has intended for requests like this to be granted. Some even turn out to be pretty active (see Cyp). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of the RfC until Xaosflux mentioned it. Had a quick look and it seems to be more concerned about the possibility of compromised accounts. My concern is gaming the system, bad faith and the likelihood of not being competent. I can't help feeling that admins are circling the wagons but will have to have a further think. This particular request, however, absolutely stinks and I hope that Master Jay realises it (although judging by their past activity, they may not even see this discussion until after it has been nodded through). - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While the community for the moment agrees that this kind of requests for resysopping should be granted, that goes for uncontroversial requests. With the only logged actions in the last couple of years being rather bad calls, it would appear to me that this request is not uncontroversial and I for one would not protest if the 'crats did not honor this request. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Randykitty, This is controversial, I suggest they do refuse it. Obvious gaming of a policy should not allow them to keep adminship. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RhinosF1 (and others) Crats are duty-bound to follow policy on resysopping. You can find it spelled out at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Restoration_of_permissions. There's no room for the interpretation you seek without community consensus, which has been sought and denied more than once. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but whatever, the 'duty-boundness' is (and suddenly it's 'duty', when seemingly at convenience at other times, it's voluntary), anyone is still free to ask questions, comments, or concerns and even offer advice if they wish to do so. Otherwise, the alternative is, 'no one cares' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is unfathomably stupid and a clear gaming of the system. It is obvious that these types of situations need to be handled on a case-by-case basis instead of constantly letting people make one or two edits and logged actions to maintain permissions that they clearly do not want to use. The bureaucrats need to determine if trust is lost by these inactive sysops and send it back to the community to determine if they should stay. If they are unwilling to go through the modern RfA, then it is clear that they are not committed to the role. I highly doubt the community would be interested in resysoping someone who has been inactive and gaming the system for 12 years. Nihlus 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Nihlus, Agreed, We need to take this stance. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bureaucrat note: I reviewed Master Jay's contributions and do not believe that it is in the best interests of the project to fulfill this request. The request, while perhaps falling within the letter of the resysop policy, is outside of its spirit and intent as Master Jay has not made more than token contributions for over eight years. I would encourage Master Jay to rejoin the project in earnest prior to requesting the return of rights. Other 'crats may see it differently and may choose to act. UninvitedCompany 18:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    UninvitedCompany, Thanks for seeing it from how the rest of us do, This is what we have WP:IAR for. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with 'token contributions' to game the system. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think IAR should apply to a situation within a well defined policy. On the other hand, choosing not to use the tools that have been given to you is not IAR, it's part of policy. Any or all crats can choose to ignore the request. Natureium (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Natureium, True they can refuse to take action on any request. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that crats aren't, really, "duty bound" to do anything, no arms are being forced here. If issues have been raised on this noticeboard questioning a resysop, and yet crats feel feel they do not come within the criteria of refusal, that doesn't mean they have no choice other than to flick the bit. Since it is the community that elects its sysops—and is the first damaged by rogue elements—then send it back to the community via WP:AN. The crats can then bask in the self-satisfaction that whatever they do is the result of a community consensus. I beieve, in the vernacular, it's called covering one's back... 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129
  • No one except WMF is duty bound to do anything (except the obvious that you should morally do anyway liek report threats of harm and illegal content. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The best way to gain experience is listening and observation. ——SerialNumber54129 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I do not have a policy based stance for this opinion, I will say that I will be actively not fulfilling this request. I encourage Master Jay to withdraw it, and spend a little time bringing himself up to speed through editting before re-requesting, and if he decides to do so, it should be considered without prejudice. WormTT(talk) 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Master Jay - I would encourage you to withdraw this request. Between [August 2010 and January 2018] you conducted zero logged actions. Please inform me and the rest of the non-crat users who have commented here: why do you want the mop? I would go as far to say that an WP:RFA is more appropriate than this. -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)