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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 17:21:54 on May 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Accounts impersonating real people

Resolved

 – Relevant accounts renamed. –xeno^talk 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteers Marquis de la Eirron and Scholarscentral have sock accounts in the names of real identifiable people, which could cause the named people to be wrongly associated with sockpuppetry or COI editing (I have found two {{connected contributor}} tags on BLP talk pages where Marquis de la Eirron socks were wrongly assumed to be the subject.) Can accounts be renamed for this reason? January (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:IMPERSONATION the account should be blocked as a minimum DP 10:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the accounts are already blocked and the concern is that the names are in article histories, making it look like the "real" person under that name made the edit and is now a blocked editor. There aren't enough links provided here to verify, but assuming that is the case, a rename of the already blocked accounts might make sense in some of these. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's one of my concerns, the other is the user pages with sockpuppetry notices on them (example). January (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org to see if it would be better for the names to be hidden. Otherwise once we rename them, the villain could use their SUL to come back in with the same name. –xeno^talk 13:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  The policy grants us the ability to hide "blatant attack names on automated lists and logs"; I don't believe simple impersonation is in scope. LFaraone 20:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you. –xeno^talk 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Would revision deletion do the trick? Criteria 3 seems to apply if there are no attribution issues. –xeno^talk 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  The accounts in question were created around 2012, and although both have continued socking they seem to have abandoned the tactic of creating impersonator accounts, so it’s unlikely they would attempt to recreate them. January (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Could you email me the names you are concerned about? –xeno^talk 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Sent. January (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks very much. Hopefully that solves things. –xeno^talk 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please desysop me

Please desyop me. Thank you. Xavexgoem (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)