Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you wish to contact bureaucrats to alert them of a privacy issue or an emergency please use
Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucrats  lists.wikimedia.org. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Click here to add a new section | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where tasks related to the Bureaucrat permission can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please record any actions which require review below in a new section.
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 raise the matter with them on their talkpage in the first instance. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages. Requests to hide usernames which are grossly insulting or contain personal information should be sent to the stewards OTRS queue via meta:Special:EmailUser/Wikimedia Stewards (or stewards To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Crat tasks | |
|---|---|
| USURP reqs | 2 |
| CHU reqs | 1 |
| RfAs | 0 |
| RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfBs | 0 |
| Overdue RfAs | 0 |
| BRFAs | 11 |
| Approved BRFAs | 0 |
No RfXs since 15:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
|
RfC concerning Clerking requests for adminship[edit]
- Formerly Clerking RfC
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA: Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Please do not comment in this section, but rather make all comments in the appropriate place on the RfC. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
Yo crats, when someone gets a chance, please remove my admin bit. No drama or whatever necessary; not really using 'em, and better not to cling to 'em for no reason. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for your service, WK. About "courtesy vanishing" and unvanishing[edit]
Now that renames are under the m:Global rename policy, Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing is outdated. Once we rename a user (even in the context of a so-called "vanishing"), I do not think that we can undo that action and rename a user (or "unvanish" them) against their will under the GRP to "punish them for returning". Accordingly, I think that we should no longer offer "vanishing" as such (nothing was ever really vanishing anyway) but simply indicate we can rename a user to "renamed user nnnnnn" on their request and they can simply stop editing. –xenotalk 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- If an unvanishing shan't be done, then make vanishing permanent: vanish & block or no vanish at all. Rgrds. --64.85.216.193 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've long said vanishing can only be done if vanished & blocked. We can't have vanished accounts editing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Xeno on this one.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that if someone socks (in violation of our policies) to get around a "vanish", then the previous account should be un-vanished. I also believe that while vanishing is a very nice option to offer our editors, I don't feel that our ToS require it, and as such, should be only available to members in good standing. — Ched : ? 14:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Renaming is global now and has become a rather clerical affair as some renaming policies contradict each other. One example is the use of company names in account names, on en.WP, it is not allowed, but there is no global consensus to not do so - indeed, I believe some project actively encourage it. As such, in that case if a username is against local policy, the renamers will still accept it and it is up to the local admins to deal with that username violation (for example, by blocking).
When it comes to "vanishing", there's always been a bit of haziness around the subject. You cannot actually meatball:RightToVanish, due to limitations in the software, but at the same time there is huge benefit in allowing some sort of exit strategy. The very fact that we do something final, can allow people to make a clean break from the encyclopedia, for whatever reason. And what are we doing really? Deleting their user page, blanking their talk page, and renaming the user. All three are completely available to any user, even the vast majority who are not in good standing. Note that global renamers are actually governed by the global right to vanish not the local one.
So that leaves the question on what to do about our local page. There we specifically threaten un-vanishing, but on a rename level, that goes against the global policy and is less likely to happen. Locally, however, we can still unvanish, by linking pages with redirects or blocking new accounts to force them back into the vanished account. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
