Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucrats  lists.wikimedia.org. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Click here to add a new section | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where tasks related to the Bureaucrat permission can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please record any actions which require review below in a new section.
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 raise the matter with them on their talkpage in the first instance. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages. To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below. Procedural removal of inactive administrators is coordinated elsewhere. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Crat tasks | |
|---|---|
| USURP reqs | 3 |
| CHU reqs | 3 |
| RfAs | 1 |
| RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfAs | 0 |
| BRFAs | 16 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
|
|
|
[edit] Inactive administrators
Wikipedia:Inactive administrators doesn't seem to have been updated for February. --Rschen7754 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I find myself with far less time for Wikipedia than I have in the past. Someone else will have to pick up the inactive administrators task. –xenotalk 14:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you'd like, I think this could be handled by a bot. Everything up to the actual desysopping, of course. Identifying the users, leaving a message, and sending an e-mail are all easy. — madman 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why that page needs to be maintained by a Crat. You only need a Crat for the actual desysopping. Plenty of people were strongly in favour of creating the system - I'd guess one of them could be rustled up by a note at AN. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- There were concerns expressed that a bureaucrat should handle the process to ensure the emails were being properly sent as there is no way to verify this. There was an offer by a bureaucrat to operate a bot, but I think they don't have time for this now. I think that it is fine if the bot is operated by a trusted user. There is discussion in the archives as to how it should operate. –xenotalk 16:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fair point; the only way I could think of to verify the e-mail was being sent correctly would be to have it change the target to me immediately before calling action=emailuser during the trial; I could also set ccme while it's live. — madman 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the only issue is making sure the bureaucrat removing the permissions can confirm that emails were sent in accordance with the policy. Could the bot cc the bureaucrat mailing list? That would be an efficient way to record that emailed notifications were properly sent. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately when sending e-mail through MediaWiki, you can only Cc: the sender, and of course we can't send e-mail outside of MediaWiki as we don't know the admins' e-mail addresses. I could have the bot automatically post the copies of the e-mails it receives to the Web. (Or to the bureaucrat mailing list, now that I think of it.) — madman 17:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This may be a stupid idea, but would it not be possible to add the address of the crat mailing list as the bot's email address? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. That would work in theory, and trout me for not thinking of it. But if someone e-mails the bot through MediaWiki, I'd probably want it to go to me (or if I need a password reset e-mail, etc.). That said, it's possible if the bureaucrats would feel more comfortable knowing that the copy of the e-mail they're getting is coming directly from MediaWiki (maybe we would set up a separate bot account). — madman 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- One alternative might be for the bot to generate a report that includes an "E-mail notice" link for each inactive admin. Someone would then click that link, where the emailuser interface would have a standard preloaded subject and message body. the box to receive a copy in your e-mail would also be ticked. All that remains would be for you to click send - two clicks total per notice, with a report that lists the names and an e-mail for each to confirm that notice was sent. I know we can preload templates, and that some special pages can take input from the referring page (as with the Delete interface reading deletion reasons from a CSD or AFD template), but am unsure if the emailuser function can do the same. Might be a time saver, and would skirt the whole verification issue. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, target is the only valid parameter for Special:EmailUser. — madman 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- One alternative might be for the bot to generate a report that includes an "E-mail notice" link for each inactive admin. Someone would then click that link, where the emailuser interface would have a standard preloaded subject and message body. the box to receive a copy in your e-mail would also be ticked. All that remains would be for you to click send - two clicks total per notice, with a report that lists the names and an e-mail for each to confirm that notice was sent. I know we can preload templates, and that some special pages can take input from the referring page (as with the Delete interface reading deletion reasons from a CSD or AFD template), but am unsure if the emailuser function can do the same. Might be a time saver, and would skirt the whole verification issue. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. That would work in theory, and trout me for not thinking of it. But if someone e-mails the bot through MediaWiki, I'd probably want it to go to me (or if I need a password reset e-mail, etc.). That said, it's possible if the bureaucrats would feel more comfortable knowing that the copy of the e-mail they're getting is coming directly from MediaWiki (maybe we would set up a separate bot account). — madman 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- This may be a stupid idea, but would it not be possible to add the address of the crat mailing list as the bot's email address? Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately when sending e-mail through MediaWiki, you can only Cc: the sender, and of course we can't send e-mail outside of MediaWiki as we don't know the admins' e-mail addresses. I could have the bot automatically post the copies of the e-mails it receives to the Web. (Or to the bureaucrat mailing list, now that I think of it.) — madman 17:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the only issue is making sure the bureaucrat removing the permissions can confirm that emails were sent in accordance with the policy. Could the bot cc the bureaucrat mailing list? That would be an efficient way to record that emailed notifications were properly sent. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's a fair point; the only way I could think of to verify the e-mail was being sent correctly would be to have it change the target to me immediately before calling action=emailuser during the trial; I could also set ccme while it's live. — madman 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't there a discussion about a bot for that already a way back? I'm pretty sure we had this discussion before...yep, here it is. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- So, it looks like last time we discussed this, consensus was to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe. This time around, consensus so far seems to be to get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat weild the actual axe. I have a suggestion, why don't we get a bot to do the legwork, but have a human crat wield the actual axe? --Dweller (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Echo... echo... echo.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- hacks off Dweller's head with an axe for displaying excessive rationality. MBisanz talk 23:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- [stumbles around, tripping over things] --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest this is not the way to get
aheada head in life. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)- It's a shame he wasn't more headstrong. — madman 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest this is not the way to get
- [stumbles around, tripping over things] --Dweller (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, step one: See if this report looks right. User:Madman/Inactive admins — madman 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- That looks pretty good, but what do I know :D -- Avi (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- As it's nearing the end of the month, I suggest we group those who would have been eligible for removal in February (had they been notified) with those for March, and notify both groups at the same time at the start of next month. WJBscribe (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Updated the report accordingly (and copied it to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators so it can be worked on while I continue to play in my sandbox). — madman 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it say 1st of March and not 1st of April? I could easily be mistaken, but all the previous request seem to work that way. Snowolf How can I help? 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Updated the report accordingly (and copied it to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators so it can be worked on while I continue to play in my sandbox). — madman 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Step two: The bot has sent an example e-mail using the e-mail template to Madman (talk · contribs); it received a copy of the message and should have automatically forwarded it, with all headers intact, to wikien-bureaucrats so bureaucrats can confirm it was indeed sent. Can someone on that list confirm this? Cheers! — madman 19:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed by Hersfold 
— madman 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)- Having read the previous discussion, I'm also going to set it up so any replies to the e-mail will automatically be forwarded to wikien-bureaucrats as well (unfortunately, there's no way to set a Reply-To header on the e-mail sent by MediaWiki, and as always the bot can't send an e-mail directly). — madman 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Madman, in the future, when you send an example e-mail, can you add a disclaimer in the Subject and in the beginning stating it is a test email for review purposes and not binding. Receiving an email titled "Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity" with the official email enclosed was a bit confusing. Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Nice work!
- Sure thing; sorry about that. — madman 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
— Just checking in on this; is there consensus to trial a bot, perhaps on February 1st for March 1st? I can file a BRFA anytime, but in my opinion, due to the nature of the task, only consensus here can approve a trial. — madman 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead with the BRFA. I think it's clear we all really really support giving work to other people :) MBisanz talk 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- But only the legwork as a 'crat still should wield the axe :-P -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what?! I totally didn't get that sense from the discussion above; I'll have to change the whole thing. → Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13
— madman 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wait, what?! I totally didn't get that sense from the discussion above; I'll have to change the whole thing. → Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13
- But only the legwork as a 'crat still should wield the axe :-P -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
— The bot has been approved for trial; one of the conditions was that the notifications' language make it clear they're being sent by a bot and indicate where to report errors. Do the following changes to the boilerplates look all right? — madman 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
| Email templates |
|---|
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators for further details. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. This message has been sent by MadmanBot on behalf of the English Wikipedia bureaucrats.
Further to a previous email, your administrator permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity before {$date}. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators for further details. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. This message has been sent by MadmanBot on behalf of the English Wikipedia bureaucrats. |
| Talk page notes |
|---|
|
Following a Updates: The report ran successfully, though it ran under my non-bot account first, so I reverted and ran it again. All last edit values are correct, but for some reason some last log values are not. I went through all administrators' logs and confirmed they still met the inactive administrator criteria. Notification then ran successfully; all talk page messages were delivered and all e-mails were sent. The bot reported it hadn't sent any e-mails when it updated the report because it was looking for the incorrect result value for success; I updated the report manually with e-mails I'd gotten a copy of, either from MediaWiki or from the forwarding script; I can confirm the seven remaining users definitely do not have e-mail set, as I was watching the results from the API. The forwarding script should have been forwarding the MediaWiki messages to both me and wikien-bureaucrats; however, I only got a copy of one or the other. I suspect either Sendmail on the Toolserver being wonky or my .forward file being incorrect (I suspect the latter; I meant for it to deliver to both my normal e-mail address and the script but I suspect if was delivered to my normal e-mail address before the script was called it didn't bother with the script.) I'm hoping wikien-bureaucrats got all 28 forwards but if not, I can forward the 17 that they would have not received. This definitely will be fixed by the next round of notifications, and having confirmed that I believe next month this can be run fully automatically. Cheers, — madman 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Misidentified admins
Hi. I've been on a data validation kick lately, so I looked at uses of Template:Administrator topicon in the User and User talk namespaces where the user isn't actually an admin. I made a list here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=479765770>. I also included the script, in case someone wants to learn something. Some of these cases are edge cases (alt accounts of admins), but most are just wrong.
Why am I posting this here? Well, most of this mess was made by bureaucrats removing adminship due to user inactivity. I guess the inactive former admins are expected to come back to update their user and user talk pages themselves? Dunno. It'd be nice if someone could go through the list and remove the little icon where it doesn't belong. And maybe check the user and user talk pages for "I'm an admin" text and remove it as appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I removed the topicon from 19 user pages, left the ones who belong to former sysops alone, the updated list is here. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Updated lists here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480073988
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=480074732
--MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Restoration of bit
I was desysopped back in November for being active for a little over a year. I'm planning on being around for a bit with some free time so would find use in the admin rights being restored. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Welcome back! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Done MBisanz talk 05:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Request desysopping of adminbots
As I've retires, User:MPUploadBot and User:EyeEightDestroyerBot can both be desysopped. If I wasn't decratted, I could have done it. But meh... (X! · talk) · @889 · 20:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Maxim(talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Rename help
I know we're all busy volunteers, but I was wondering if I could get a few more crat or clerk eyes at WP:CHUS. I've been doing about 85% of the recent renames and don't mind, but sometimes I will ignore requests that seem iffy to me, hoping someone else will deal with them. Someone else dealing with them or at least commenting on them would be appreciated. Thanks. MBisanz talk 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will try to swing by more often. Should the community be thinking about appointing a new bureaucrat? WJBscribe (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or just abolish the entire rename process :P Snowolf How can I help? 22:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to help clerk WP:CHU and deal with malformed or inappropriate requests. (I'm not a bureaucrat and thus cannot rename users, but I am familiar with WP:UP.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
