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	1
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
DreamRimmer	38	29	11	57	Open	10:02, 4 June 2024	4 days, 9 hours	no	report

It is 00:14:18 on May 31, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Request for desysop

Hi there - I'd greatly appreciate my desysopping. While I maintain the propriety of every administrative action I have ever taken on Wikipedia (although I'll own up to a bit of incivility in my non-admin capacity!), I think it is time for me to hand in the tools and, to avoid any future disputes, self-declare that I'm doing so under a cloud. If anyone is wondering why, I just don't think the benefit the project and me get from me having the tools (which is pretty limited as I hardly use them any more) justifies the drama that I fear I'm about to be put through. Thank you. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I reinstated the rights you had prior to becoming an admin (reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled). If you want those removed as well, just ask. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside, while I didn't investigate too deeply, I did notice your page literally seconds before it was deleted yesterday. (I started to look into the allegations and when I went back to the page, it was gone.) That being said, from what I saw, you had little to no fear of having your bit removed. Of course, somebody who has the name Balloonman sees absolutely nothing wrong with calling somebody the class clown ;-) I do, unfortunately, agree that since you are stepping down after somebody said they would initiate a recall process, that this is under a cloud.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing or supporting the under a cloud bit. There was a question of , what are your recall conditions from one user and I added my future vote if ever there was an admin action that warranted recall with my previous issues with the user, I would probably be one of the voters - but all of that is just speculation - the user has not done anything to warrant recall as I can see and he can't just declare it as under cloud himself when he may of been upset. I have only one current issue with him, and that is in relation to a non admin civility issue which is waiting at first base for a resolution if or when he returns. Its up to the crats to decide if it was under a cloud or not and I would have no objection if they were to reject his under a cloud comment. Youreallycan 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He has not requested the bit back nor has he invoked RTV, so this is entirely academic unless he requests the bit back at a later date. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is academic at a later date, but having the current thoughts on the subject will help refresh our understanding down the road should he ask for them back or undergo another RfA. I do put a lot of weight into YRC's statement above that he doesn't feel that this is leaving under a cloud, because my statement above was based upon a discussion I saw between the two of them. If YRC doesn't consider it under a cloud, I'm willing ot defer to him as he was more involved with the discussion that lead to this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The only cloud I saw was a Mare's Tail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of bot flag

Resolved

Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Kumi-Taskbot, all approvals for Kumi-Taskbot (talk · contribs) have been revoked by the Bot Approvals Group. Could a bureaucrat outside the group please confirm and implement the consensus of this discussion, removing Kumi-Taskbot's bot flag? Thank you, — madman 15:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need, I concur and have further requested that access to AWB for me and the bot be removed per the communities apparent desires. If I feel like editing again in the future and access is needed I will rerequest it again. That way I can be reminded of how the zero defect mentality of the community has no tolerence for mistakes and editors trying to make improvements to the project and the request can be denied appropriately. As another editor recently called me, DIVA out! --Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems axiomatic to me that a bot with no approvals should not have a bot flag, so administrators can clearly tell the difference between authorized and unauthorized bots, and that the flag would be regained upon any subsequent task's approval, but I can also see how removing the bot flag might be seen as punitive. So it's up to whatever bureaucrat wants to review the matter (if any). :x — madman 23:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the bot flag. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (no sarcasm intended). --Kumioko (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'crat rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear all. Please note that I just removed the bureaucrat rights of user X! as he resigned a month ago (as an administrator and edit filter manager). Bureaucrats can't remove 'crat rights and besides that, you can't be a 'crat without being an admin. If you disagree with me, feel free to re-add his right. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is it in policy that you can't be a 'crat without being an admin? There is no requirement that the two go hand in hand. We've even had discussion in the distant past that it was technically possible to be one without another. That being said, it is probably ok, but I do think X should be asked.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

X! left a month ago and removed all the rights he *could* remove, which he can't with the 'crat rights. Therefore I thought this was non-controversial. But if the local bureaucrats disagree with me, they're free to re-add the right. It's technically possible to be a 'crat without being an admin, but usually it's not wished (besides, he resigned...). Trijnstel (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said not big deal... I wouldn't worry about it... just put a note on his page. If he doesn't contest it... nbd. But I did have to comment that you CAN be a 'crat without being an Admin. There is no requirement.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I left a note on his user talk. And again, if the local 'crats disagree, feel free to re-add the right. Trijnstel (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about the removal of his rights, in the line of Balloonman's comment, but he clearly intended to resign his rights and it can always be re-added under policy, so this is the common-sense sort of interpretation of policy I want to encourage. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree Secretlondon (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much in agreement with the above. Technically, there is no explicit proviso against being a 'crat without being an admin, although the editor would have to be trusted not to grant the rights to him or herself without the appropriate RfA. However, X! clearly decided to resign, and any reasonable person would conclude he meant to have his crat bit removed as well, and had 'crats had the right to remove the bit, they likely would have at the time, so I do not see any harm at all in what Trijnstel did, and he was certainly acting for the benefit of the project as he understood it. Worse comes to worse, we can always add the bit back . -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• As a rule, I would prefer stewards not to act in that capacity unilaterally except in emergencies or when mandated for privacy reasons, but in this case, it's not controversial and X! has, unfortunately, clearly left, so it's not a big deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(non-bureaucrat intervention) Many have mentioned this in this thread, but with all the "buts" the message was not bold enough in my opinion. Regardless of the merits of this specific case, stewards have no legitimacy whatsoever for removing rights on this project outside of emergencies. The English Wikipedia has set up requirements and a stringent review process for its bureaucrats and other right holders, and the metapedians who are not duly vetted by this community should not be going around removing flags that are specific to this project. It sets a very bad precedent. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite, and Trijnstel has been reminded of this. Whatever the community decides about this particular issue, the steward policy should prevent it from happening in general. It will not happen again. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Imho there's no reason why bureaucrats shouldn't be able to remove the crat bit as well. No need to rely on outsiders when we have plenty of trusted local people that could take care of things like this. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If X! had wanted his bureaucrat bit removed, he knows how to request same at meta. Not sure why this was done in a non-emergency situation without local consultation. –xeno^talk 14:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• While I don't see why someone can't be a crat while not being an admin, I do think that a "Retired" note on a user page is sufficient reason to remove both crat and admin bits. These are, after all, merely functional roles that some editors fill, rather than awards for merit or ranks in the military. A retired editor will not be performing these functions and has no need for the bits. If X! returns (and I sure hope so), he can always ask for them here. --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point we all agree, including the steward who performed the action, that it was an error. However, it was an error made in good faith, with the best interests of EnWiki in mind, it has no long-standing ill effects, it is easily reversible if necessary, and the steward in question has been informed of the error, understands it was an error, and wont repeat it. So, does anyone have any problems with marking this resolved? -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. –xeno^talk 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)

Sounds a great idea. If the bot can also keep the page updated, that'd be optimal. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I may file a BRFA then and do a trial for March 2012. :) — madman 15:58, 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. –xeno^talk 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)

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)

AND MY AXE! — madman 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Echo... echo... echo.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dweller has me thinking; I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but wouldn't it be great to have a bot to do the legwork, but have a human 'crat wield the axe? -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds wrong...how about instead we let a bot do the legwork and a human 'crat wields the axe? ;-) Regards SoWhy 21:21, 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 ahead a 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)

Coding a bot with legs and no axe. — madman 23:21, 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)

I've just changed it to the report as it would have appeared on February 1st. — madman 16:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rights request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a 'crat move my admin privileges to my alternate account? I'm expecting to be less available for admin tasks for a while and right now I'm at the top of Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active, which means my talk page is often the first stop for people wanting admin assistance. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

An alternative would be to get a name change Z8byts... then you would be near the bottom of the list ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The ☂ account would still be at the top as there are no other symbol admins and I think that an unpronounceable username would be difficult for users to manage, What would we call you? Brolly??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also just remove yourself from that list. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's updated by bot and it doesn't look like there's an opt-out mechanism. — madman 16:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this would be a reasonable request to allow me to focus on bot work (which requires occasional edits to protected templates) without having to worry about my orange bar lighting up with requests for admin help that, due to recent events, I would like to take a break from handling. However, as this is apparently a controversial request, I withdraw it and will go with "Plan B". Peace, 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.