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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 20:58:03 on September 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop Request

I'd be most grateful if you could restore my sysop privleges which were recently remove due to inactivity. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'll get to this after lunch. MBisanz ^talk 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done (since it looks like MBisanz has taken a very long lunch). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, life distracted me. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the lunch really that amazing? What did you have? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A question (and suggestion) regarding user name requests

I've been active in some admin areas, but not in reviewing unblock requests. I started looking at some today. Three of the requests were requests to unblock so they could apply for a new user name. In all cases, the editor had under 100 edits, and was using a name associated with a corporation or entity.

It is my opinion that such requests should be rejected, and the editor should be advised to simply abandon the unacceptable user name and create a new one. I think we also suggest that an editor should provide a link to the other account, if they create a new one (per WP:SOC "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts.") I suggest this qualifies as one of the legitimate exceptions. If we don't want a user to appear to be editing on behalf of XYZCorp, a notice on Jane Doe's user page that she is the user formerly known as user:XYZCorp defeats the purpose.

It is my belief that 'crats will not do a rename when there are few edits associated with the first account, per the advice in Wikipedia:Username policy: "User accounts with few or no edits will not normally be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account."

However, that advice does not define "few". I think it could be as high as 250, but I suspect that will be viewed as too high, so I propose that "few" be defined as "fewer than 100". Of course, if there is some convention, please let me know.

If we can agree on a number, recognizing that this is merely a guideline, and requests with fewer can be honored with good cause (and those with more might also be rejected), we should modify the advice given in the standard unblock request template, to let them know that they shouldn't bother requesting a change in username, if they have fewer than n edits, whatever we decide n to be. It seems quite odd that we would encourage them to request a change in name, then reject that change in name, when we knew it would be rejected.--SPhilbrickT 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually we only decline requests for rename when the account is very new and has only a few insignificant edits. And by few, we're talking about, say five or ten. If they've got dozens of edits it will probably be processed. MMV. –xeno^talk 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought the bar was a bit higher.

One editor I reviewed had 6 edits, I trust that would be rejected. Another had 39 or so, it sounds like that one would be accepted. It still may be useful to modify the template, so that editors with five edits aren't encouraged to request a new name.--SPhilbrickT 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In cases such as this, if they really want to keep their existing edits, I just rename them. It takes far less time, and is more friendly and non-bitey to the new editor than insisting they have to abandon their new account. Renaming is basically just reviewing a few pages and then clicking a button. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I must have misremembered. Somewhere I got the impression that it was enough work, that it might not be done for a handful. Sounds like it is more commonly accepted than I had thought.--SPhilbrickT 17:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Nihonjoe: it's not that big of a deal to fulfill the rename, and there are benefits to having the attendant history move to the user's new compliant username. –xeno^talk 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in with xeno and Nihonjoe; it's far less bitey, which I think is the better option, as there's a slightly higher chance (IMO; I have nothing to back up that opinion, just a gut feeling) that we'll get a productive editor out of the situation. Net positive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, about the only time I don't do a rename is if it specifically violates a policy or guideline (a company name, a vulgar word/phrase, etc.) or if they keep wanting a name change every five minutes. Otherwise, I'll generally just go through with it. It's really not that much work to do it. Perhpas we'd be more picky if we were really, really busy, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (note: this comment is not to be used by anyone as a reason to not appoint more bureaucrats). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I use it as an opportunity. I'll typically request they confirm they have read WP:COI and understand it applies regardless of username, before I agree to the request. Saves the grief of them going off and breaching COI on another account. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Requiring a rename (as opposed to abandon-and-generate-new-account) ensures an unbroken history, so if/when the obviously promo account starts editing in a COI way, it's easy to see where that started. → ROUX ₪ 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• The suggestion to abandon a username and just create another mixes WP:BEANS into WP:SOCK. My wish is that every new IP editor be auto-offered an available and pronouncible username to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a 'crat be so kind as to

Close Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Slakr? It's been over a week. --Chris 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Done, although I wasn't aware it needed to be a Crat that did this. If a BAG member could write up a brief "how to do" for closing these noms and add it to WP:BUREAUCRAT, I'd be grateful, as I kind of made it up as I was going along. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The relevant templates are shown in the table at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures, but there could perhaps bit a bit more explanation there... –xeno^talk 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's barely mentions BAG at all. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Centralized talk page for username change discussions

In the interest of convenience and ensuring our customers receive timely responses, I've centralized discussions related to username changes to Wikipedia talk:Changing username. Any bureaucrats or other interested users should watch that page if they haven't already. –xeno^talk 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysop request

Once the parallel RFCs on giving bureaucrats the ability to desysop conclude, and the ability is implemented, I'd like to be the first to be voluntarily desysopped by a 'crat. I'm retired, so there's no rush (and why I'm asking now), and if it gets forgotten, that's not a big deal either. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure it'll be dealt with whenever. It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

" It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. " - I'm well aware; if I wanted that, I'd have asked for it. Rd232 ^talk 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to be desysopped then that's the approach I suggest you take. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I could make a request here and now, and in a week or three once they're able, a 'crat would do it. I don't want a steward to do it. If it's too much trouble, then never mind, I'll get desysopped for inactivity in a year. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What about 'crats who are stewards (there are two of us). In the cases of self-requests (or other non-controversial situations) stewards may act on home wikis. So is it that you do not want to bother on meta, or do you want someone acting as a 'crat to remove the bit? -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rd232 probably wants the local rights log to reflect the change. –xeno^talk 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well (a) I wanted the log to be local (b) I supported giving crats the ability, and thought it would be nice to be (among) the first to be desysopped by a crat. It seemed a simple idea but I guess it's throwing people a bit. Rd232 ^talk 00:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem waiting for the RFCs to end before handling this. He said he's in no hurry. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's leave it there. If someone remembers, great; if not, that's fine too. Rd232 ^talk 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)