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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 18:39:24 on April 16, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Requesting Re-sysop (Ad Orientem)

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.

Ad Orientem (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

There remains a great deal of what I will call "nuts and bolts" type details in terms of our relationship with the WMF still to be resolved. However, based on the replies to my question here; I am satisfied that the immediate, and I believe extreme threat to the traditional autonomy of the community posed by T&S which impelled my resignation, is over. Those answers from editors I hold in very high regard, combined with some of the comments from Jimbo and others directly connected with the board give me a sense of cautious optimism that whatever changes may be coming, they will not be imposed unilaterally. For me at least, that is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues, standard 24-hour hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done welcome back --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requesting Re-sysop (Nick)

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.

Nick (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I've been keeping a careful eye on the situation and I believe WMF are now acutely aware of how the community feels regarding their wholly inappropriate, badly performed clusterfuck. I trust this situation will not be permitted to reoccur. Nick (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also acknowledge the standard 24 hour hold. Nick (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues preventing return following that standard hold. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Resysop request (Yelyos)

Yelyos (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I recently reconnected with the community by attending the NYC Wiknic and would like to continue dealing with CSDs. Yelyos (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yelyos: There's a standard 24-hour waiting period per WP:RESYSOP to allow people to comments and review the request. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that there are no procedural concerns with restoration; all activity-related metrics are below the re-RFA threshold. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that before today Yelyos had not edited since September 2016, and their last 50 edits go back to 2007, are there not questions to be raised about how up to date they are on policy? Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their last four deletes go back to 2007 as well. Deletion is very different from it was back then, and more so in practice than in written policy. Lot of catching up to do. —Cryptic 01:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good conversation with Yelyos at the Wiknic and encouraged them to request their rights back. I expect they'll take time to get accustomed to changes before jumping head-first into complicated matters. The more hands we have, the better. Legoktm (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Welcome back :) Legoktm (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A strict reading of policies doesn't seem to disqualify this request: access was removed ~21 months ago following inactivity since September of 2016, so they are ~2 months short of the "3 year rule", last admin activity was in February of 2015, so ~6 months short of the "5 year rule". Practices and policies have certainly changed over the years, so I strongly urge Yelyos to read up on everything before putting these tools to use. I strongly doubt Yelyos would pass an RfA today, but the community has consistently maintained a very low standard for admin activity and resysoping, and this isn't the venue to have that discussion again (WT:ADMIN is for anyone that wants to go down that road). The only policy based argument would be that we need to be satisfied that whoever is logged in to this account today is the same person that was active years ago, that the "account has not been compromised". — xaosflux ^Talk 02:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obvious resysop by policy standards. We have no evidence to suggest a compromise. Welcome back :) If people want to argue for higher resysop standards, that's fine, but WT:ADMIN is the place for it, not here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Yelyos. Please take a little bit of time to familiarize yourself with contemporary standards for administrators, and be cautious for a while. But we needed your help, so get started. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I echo that sentiment. And if CSDs is what you wish to work on, feel free to ask me anything anytime if you are unsure after being out of the admin-business for some time. Regards So Why 06:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues with returning the admin bit. It hasn't been very long anyway, in my opinion. Κσυπ Cyp 11:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat note: I am uncomfortable with this because Yelyos was never very active as an admin, only ever made 1600 edits, and has not been meaningfully engaged with the community since 2007. Regardless of what policy may say, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the project to return the tools. From a technical policy interpretation standpoint, it would be the bureaucrats' perogative to confirm that this is the same individual who was editing in 2007. The only biographical information at User:Yelyos indicates the user was a resident of Thornhill, Ontario. The request above suggests that the user is now in New York City, leaving us with nothing to go on other than possession of the account's password or email. At a minimum, I believe that some sort of wider community discussion should precede the return of the tools. Uninvited Company 17:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that the account is compromised merely because someone who used to live in Ontario was in New York City (about an 8-hour drive from Thornhill) and because of the user's lack of edits to the project generally. The user may have simply gone to New York, a popular destination for many people all over the world. Or they may have in fact moved to NYC. Also apparently Legoktm met the user at the event. I don't know if Legoktm had ever met the user before, in which case they could certainly verify that it's the same person. Regardless, I think your charge is at best misguided; nor do I see how a community discussion would be able to answer it one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am always over-enthusiastic about old timers returning to project (admin/non admins), but oddly, I agree with UninvitedCompany; including the account ownership situation. Edit counter of Yelyos. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that policy states that the 'crats must be satisfied that it is the same individual. I don't think there's any evidence of a problem, but I don't see any means of confirming the absence of a problem either. Uninvited Company 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(This newb thinks) If the respected old-timers still trust them (which it seems they did a lot, since they got the bit with 1600 edits or less) and they can be verified to be the same person (as it seems they can), I would have no problem with them getting the tools. But if this leaves the high office, they ought to be required to make enough edits within a duration of, say, a few months, so that we can know that they mean to be active and a pattern can be established of their conduct, as well as competence (with regard to the updated policies). Short of that, it should not go to broader community as the community should neither be asked nor allowed to !vote blindly. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool, it was actually around 1300 edits at the time of the RFA. When it comes to pre-2007 RFAs, don't take them as any particular sign of anything; back then the RFA process was more along the lines of "does anyone have any objections?", and unless one was seriously disruptive the admin bit was more-or-less handed out on request to anyone who'd been here more than around six months. (Yelyos's first RFA came close to passing when they had fewer than 400 edits.) ‑ Iridescent 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who they are - this was brought up on IRC and was the primary reason Legoktm posted about NYC. I find that this is sufficient evidence for me that they are who they claim to be. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one imo. I agree with the comments from User:UninvitedCompany. Perhaps, ask the community with a RFC or returning older users requesting permissions back should be asked to re-run for them. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One can suggest a change in policy for future cases as xaosflux has pointed out. But the possibility that the community might change the standards is not a good enough reason not to apply policy in this case. The community has decided the requirements as they are now and if a user meets them, they get their bit back. Many people got bits after a very short tenure back in the early years (2001-2005), among them also UninvitedCompany FWIW (2004), so one should not expect the same body of work from these editors. If there is no specific reason to assume that Yelyos' account was compromised (which, as Bbb23 points out, does not exist), they can and should get the bit back. Regards So Why 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SoWhy. I can appreciate the current policy is current policy position. Perhaps a community discussion RFC regarding returning older users requesting permissions back should be asked to re-run for them is an idea for later. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think consensus has changed since the RFC from hell a couple of years ago that set the existing policy, feel free to draft an RfC. Otherwise, we're not going to rewrite policy as we go along. ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that consensus will change very quickly if Yelyos gets their bit back and the facts of the matter are widely understood. Uninvited Company 19:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like last time, you mean? (three edits and zero admin actions since you gave the bit back because I plan on participating again earnestly.) The resysop policy is a joke, but there are too many legacy admins for you ever to have a hope of tightening it. ‑ Iridescent 20:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iridescent. If the resysop policy is a joke, that is a concern. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joke or not, it's what we have. How and when any user (admin or not) utilizes their time is their business. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Come on folks, nobody has any right to modify policy here. If policy says Yelyos can have the admin bit back then, absent any actual evidence of account compromise, Yelyos can have the admin bit back after a 24 hour hold period. There's no RFC needed, all that's needed is for Bureaucrats to just follow policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
erm... Why do we have 24 hours hold period? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Welcome back. From a procedural standpoint there is no problem with the request, and the majority of the opposition is mainly due to the activity of the user and not any behavioral or editorial reasons. BN is not the place to change policy, especially during an otherwise uncontroversial resysop request. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question (Ched)

I'm wondering if I'm reading the above linked WP:RESYSOP correctly; am I able to reasonably request a return of my tools? ty for your time. — Ched : ? — 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non crat comment) Yes, it would be automatic in your case as well; the time limit since the last admin action only kicks in if you were desysopped for inactivity. Provided you resigned voluntarily, then even one edit every two years and 364 days would be enough for you to count as "active". ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see why not. –xeno^talk 15:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you, I appreciate your time. — Ched : ? — 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually matter whether the 5-year rule applies here, when Ched's last admin action was in December 2015, meaning, even if that rule applied, it wouldn't prevent restoration of adminship until December 2020. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: would you actually like to have access returned? There is a normal 24-hour hold from when you "request" it. Regarding the timers, you are clearly safe from the '5 year rule' until at least 2020-12-29 - beyond that there will likely be at least a lot of arguing that could be avoided if you came back before then (or if you chose to request access via the standard process); keep in mind that this is a wiki and policies could change as well! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would be very happy if you did!

Regards So Why 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you SoWhy, I consider that quite a compliment. Xaosflux, I'll have to think about that for a bit. I was simply curious about the current reading of the resysop policy. While I'm thinking, I'll review the current versions of various policy pages and their attending talk pages. To be honest, I am concerned about how the role of the WMF is evolving; and I certainly don't want to diminish the actions of 28, Floq, Boing, Beebs, Dennis, DJ, WJB, Spartz, and so many others have undertaken in the past month or so. tl;dr Not at the moment, but thank you and I'll consider it in the future. — Ched : ? — 21:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll forgive a moment of cynicism, if you're considering it you may want to request the bit back now, and re-resign if you subsequently decide you don't want it. I wouldn't be surprised if the thread above leads to a radical tightening of the inactivity policy fairly soon, and while I don't doubt you'd pass a new RFA it would be an unnecessary waste both of your time and of the time of everyone participating. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent sounds like good advice ATM. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, we never close! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BNMaintenance, this noticeboard closes between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. UTC on the first of every month for maintenance, i.e., such tasks as desysopping, decratting, the usual.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]