Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Bureaucrats' noticeboard archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

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

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	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 08:06:39 on May 14, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Voluntary deadmin request (Crazytales)

Resolved

Crazytales (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Please remove the sysop bit from me. I've been pretty inactive and not really done anything that needs it recently. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crazytales/Alison. Reluctantly done. Feel free to come back and ask for the tools to be returned, or if you need additional userrights. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice task for someone

I'm recusing from closing the RfA. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Easy one. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call that weighing consensus? Huh :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had to take out the big scales — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Are there any current rules about the necessity of an admin to perform admin tasks in order to keep the bit? I ask because I just ran across an admin who, as far as I can tell, if I'm reading the logs right, hasn't performed an admin task for over 5 years. They've edited, buth nothing administrative. Is that OK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: You're looking for WP:INACTIVITY, which addresses your question in the first sentence. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What's unclear to me is whether a non-bureaucrat (myself for instance) can begin the notification process before turning it over to 'crats, or if the entire process needs to be initiated by you folks, for the purpose of vetting it before it begins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken The "or" between "edits" and "admin actions" should be understood as a nor -- an account needs to have made neither edits nor logged admin actions. An admin simply editing is not considered inactive with regards to policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly tweaked the wording to remove potential ambiguity. ('crats, feel free to further tweak wording if you feel my change is not ideal) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: additionally, we do track inactive administrators (see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017) and until very recently had a bot taking care of most of the notifications. Another bot operator is reviewing the task to re-automate it now. There is not policy requirement as to "who" has to send out the notifications, but we do have it covered for the most part. If you think the 5 years no logs admin is interesting - check out the current inactivity report above. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that clarification and additional information. The admin in question has been editing, so would not qualify under the inactivity standards. I thought at some point there was consideration of requiring admin actions to keep the bit, but I may be mistaken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might be thinking of functionaries (CU-OS), who do have activity requirements that dictate they must be using the user-right to keep it. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)I[reply]

That might be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, 'crats are now required to do 'crat things to retain that bit. 28bytes (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that something similar should be adopted for admins as well. An admin who has no edits at all is probably someone who has simply, for whatever reason, become disinterested in Wikipedia, but one who makes edits but does not do any admin tasks is still interested in Wikipedia, but doesn't appear to be interested in being an admin anymore -- or else they haven't come across anything which required using the bit, which seems unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed in 2015, without consensus: Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted in support of that, so it's probably what I was thinking of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued by the admin who has never had a logged admin action. Weird. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ffirehorse - Is it possible some admin stuff wasn't logged as it is today back in 2004? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read that. I found it interesting that in 2009 19 "support" votes were sufficient to become an admin. Also that of the 20-some-odd participants, only 2 names were recognizable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no relevant results for this search, which should catch all the old logs. Graham87 09:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My old account's admin rights

I used to be an admin under the username Jakec. Since it's been suggested that keeping the tools on an inactive account might pose a security risk, and since I don't have any want or need for the tools anymore, it'd probably be best to remove them from my old account. Thanks. Jakob (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They will be automatically removed in less than two months. I'm not a crat, but I imagine it is hard to them to remove sysop rights from a user unless they are logged into that account making the request. On a personal note, its sad to see an admin leave, we don't have an overabundance of good admin as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakob Coles: do you have any logged edits or actions between these accounts that can demonstrate that they are both under your control? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of actions do you mean? To be fair, I can't prove that the other account is mine, as I've scrambled the password, though there is circumstantial evidence, like having the same name and creating content in the exact same subject area that I specialized in as Jakec. If that's not sufficient, I'm glad to wait for the bits to expire due to inactivity, it doesn't really matter to me. Jakob (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jakob Coles: actions or edits could include and old account leaving a message or a log summary for the new account to attest to the ownership, access to a committed identify or the secret match to a public key, etc. While a desysop action is reversible, the community has shown via policy making that the removal of administrator access is a "Big Deal". Thank you for bringing this up and for taking account security seriously, but I am not seeing any policy based support that will allow this to occur. I know this sounds very "bureaucratic" - but that is somewhat the point. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Xaosflux: When I left, I hadn't planned on ever coming back, so I'm afraid I don't have anything like that. Jakob (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-bureaucrat comment) Even if the sysop permissions were removed from Jakec "two months early", they could still request it within the same three-years-from-last-edit period whether this request is "legitimate" or not, so I'd be fine with processing this sooner rather than later as it doesn't impact the user's ability to get their permissions restored. However, I have absolutely no doubt this is legitimate. From reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-07/Interview, [1] and old user page revisions I am convinced there is no foul play (FWIW). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't any doubt that these two users are the same, why not just move the bit to the new account?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no doubt, it remains that there is no "proof". To make an "unproven" account admin requires, IMO, more strict verification than "hastening an inactivity desysopping by two months". If Jacob had said "Jakec is my old account and is compromised" it would have been desysopped without anyone asking any questions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that just waiting two months would be the best option. If the password is sufficiently secure even the owner cannot figure it out, it isn't much of a risk. As an added bonus, no one can really complain about it either. :) Prodego ^talk 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my argument can be summed up as "there is no harm in hastening the inactivity removal by two months, while there is theoretical potential harm in not doing so if the admittedly-abandoned account gets compromised". It's a net positive. Plus, we try responsabilizing admins about account security (strong passwords, 2FA, public logins, inactivity), it seems kind of silly to react this way when one (apparently) decides to heed our recommendations. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've given it some thought and still stand by the fact that I proposed the alternative solution above, of course I think the bureaucrat team is taking the right decision. I agree with Nihonjoe that it is unlikely that the account will be compromised and I too hope that the odds won't bite us in the butt and 'crats don't get accused of mismanaging this avoidable problem. :) Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 'crat (or admin), but since I commented on this at the current RfB, I might as well comment here: I think xaosflux is right. If there isn't proof the accounts are connected there isn't a basis in policy for a desysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: I think waiting for it to be automatically removed is the best course. If it gets compromised between now and then, it will be removed early. I find that scenario unlikely, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]