Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mates (talk | contribs) at 10:19, 10 July 2012 (→Usurpations: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    Shortcuts

    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
    Worm That Turned 254 4 6 98 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 2 days, 12 hours no report
    It is 21:34:46 on November 15, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Pre-RfA discussion

    What would you (ye bureaucrats) think concerning a prospective RfA candidate having a pre-RfA vetting discussion? I know we somewhat have this through Wikipedia:Editor review, but rather than specify what discussion page/process, just in general, would it be disallowed for them to later transclude that pre-RfA discussion to the subsequent RfA's talk page? - jc37 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be asking two things. What we think of pre-vetting and what we think of it being on the talk page.

    Pre-vetting already exists, sometimes more formally than other times. To an extent, a nomination is a type of pre-vetting. As a crat I don't mind it, but beware the community, or a chunk of it (sufficient to sink an RfA, perhaps) may see things differently. There was a fair bit of kick-back against the old Admin School, I recall.

    On the other question, personally, I'm not averse to most relevant things being placed on RfA talk pages, but perhaps linking might be more appropriate than transcluding, as a transclusion of a mass of stuff might stifle the main use of a talk page - ie discussion of what is on the corresponding page. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So not disallowed, but should take care that it not affect talk page usage? - jc37 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why it should affect talk page usage. I'm not one to discourage any suggestions for reform but, as to the broader idea, I tend to think that RfA reform is better aimed at RfA participants and their standards/expectations, rather than the candidates. I'm not sure pre-RfA vetting will overcome the problem that candidates are increasingly expected to be able to weild the mop perfectly from day one, rather than be people who have generally shown themselves to be clueful users who will learn sensibly on the job... WJBscribe (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop me for a couple hours?

    I would like to "test drive" how the OS and CU functions work without the admin flag here, so could someone kindly desysop me for a few hours? Thanks. Courcelles 17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have fun. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you loved doing that desysop EVula. ;-) The Helpful One 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, be nice! lol
    (Though thanks for my chuckle of the day : ) - jc37 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Experiments complete, thanks, guys, can someone flip the switch again. Courcelles 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done MBisanz talk 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is a rights-related discussion noticeboard — Courcelles, is there anything to report (that can be reported here)? WilliamH (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser generally works, absent the ability to block from within the interface. Oversight has some holes, a page cannot be delete suppressed, which makes handling some situations as an oversighter either exponentially longer than they should otherwise be, or flat-out impossible. I actually thought it would be the other way, that it would be CU that threw the flag, but it wasn't. Courcelles 06:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's never been an issues with CUs that ain't admins, and several wikis, including major ones have had CUs w/o admin at various points. Oversight without admin on the other hand is really uncommon, if it has ever happened. Snowolf How can I help? 08:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Desysop request

    Per this motion, please remove the administrative permissions from User:Carnildo. As an Arbitration Committee clerk --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Following precedent, should the block be expunged from the block log?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Block expungement is pretty rare (even though I proposed it on the workshop in the original Giano arbitration case six years ago), and in this case, the formerly blocked editor hasn't requested it. I think that the notation that the block was overturned on review from the Arbitration Committee is probably sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I would say no, it is an important part of the record of these events. AS it relates to Itsmejudith, that the ArbCom reversed the block within hours is also on the record, and should be taken into account if anyone in the future is pondering her block log. though. Courcelles 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, one of my many, too many in fact, items on my to-do list is to work on an essay, potentially leading to a proposal, regarding how and when expungement should work. It's my belief we can eat our cake and have it too (not lose the record, yet not have it quite so visible). I'm still mulling over issues, but I couldn't pass up a chance on a relevant situation to hear your thoughts. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this eligible for a name change?

    Please see User talk:Avraham#racism. I for one would be willing to rename the locked vandal for now to, although that won't help with LTA page titles. Anyone else ('crat or not) have any comments or thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a 'Crat, but I was just RevDeling an offensive username and noticed that the associated message recommends reblocking by an Oversighter with hideuser enabled. Would that help? It Is Me Here t / c 10:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I can do that too, if necessary, but in this case I think it less helpful as there already exists other pages that reference this vandal by name, and thus suppressing the username may lead to more confusion. All the pages that use the name would have to be changed as well (whether the name is suppressed or changed). -- Avi (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't mind the rename, either. But that's all we can do for the situation. MBisanz talk 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with MBisanz. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with rename. Not sure here, but perhaps we could find a friendly bot operator interested in changing all the instances of the name on our pages? --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No objection to renaming etc, but has the target of the slur requested it? Personally, I'd err on the side of ignoring such things rather than giving them this much attention. WJBscribe (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Per [1], the target has indicated discomfort as to the name. The issue remains that this is a user with about a dozen separate subpages in WP:SPI and in WP:SSP before that dating back to the late naughts. Whilst the username change is simple, changing all the links will be time consuming unless someone has a bot that can be used? -- Avi (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RTV

    Requests for vanishing do not require discussion nor continuation of disputes.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    'Nuff said. I've scrambled my password, and the next thing I click after 'save page' will be 'logout.' → ROUX ₪ 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest no action be taken at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest you ignore anything said by the guy who harassed me until I invoked RTV and just kill my fucking account already. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaguely seen the back story on this, but it's a little self evident that anyone who has claimed to have scrambled their password and log out, yet manages to log back in again to post an hour later, is really not actually committed to either one or more of disappearing, scrambling their password or logging out.... Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the last comment above was made signed in as an ip and not with his account.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi - The User:Roux - has requested a nudge here and still appears to be requesting his RTV request to be actioned - User_talk:Roux#Enough. - Youreallycan 15:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize hard cases aren't always the best time to change policy, but this is a classic example of someone leaving in a fit of pique. Without opining on the merits of said pique, this is not the careful thought out situation of someone who wants to permanently leave, or an emergency situation of someone using their real name which needs immediate protection. Other than emergencies, we ought to find a way to temporarily suspend someone, and after a suitable time period, say, a year, act on the request if still desired. We are being asked to use a process for a situation to which it almost certainly does not apply.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree with you there. He is clearly upset, perhaps as his user and talkpage are now locked we can give him a few days to cool down and get verification from him via email that he then still wants to vanish and can action it for him then. - Right to vanish is just that - we all have it and it helps a user to let go and waiting a year wouldn't help anyone - at least if your in good standing its an option. As I have historically seen such requests are acted on sympathetically even in cases involving users not in good standing. Youreallycan 15:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, are you saying the roux is piquant? By the way, I have courtesy-blanked roux's talkpage and full-protected it indef, as the editor wishes no further contact, and is unable to reset some of their preferences (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Related (and perhaps required) reading: meatball:GoodBye. -- Avi (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    nb: his last IP post referred to getting email notifications of the talk activity. This means he can use password reset to get the account back. Give him some time, space, and a link to Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LessHeard vanU - removal of extended privileges

    Resolved

    I should be grateful if my Oversight and Administration privileges, and any others extending from granting of same, would be removed promptly (no need to drop everything, I have not and am not planning to do anything with them). I would be further grateful that confirmation is provided to my talkpage, since I still get notification of such updates. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your efforts in both capacities. I have removed your admin rights and made a request on meta for a Steward to do the same for oversight. WJBscribe (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the oversight-userright following meta request. Regards. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    best wishes, Mark. Br'er Rabbit (talk) (Jack) 22:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Usurpations

    Hello. Please, could somebody check the Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations page? Some requests are just one step from approval. Thanks --Mates245 (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=501536037"