Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 1 December 2018 (→Inactive admins for December 2018: doing). 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 9
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    Voorts 146 11 5 93 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 1 day, 11 hours no report
    It is 10:02:21 on November 7, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Resysop request (Randykitty)

    I am nearing the end of my 3-month self-imposed wikibreak and hereby request to have my bit restored. I still have a week to go, so there's no urgency. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome back. Standard 24-hour hold; no concerns. 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Welcome Back. — xaosflux Talk 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huz... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Spartaz)

    Since we dropped our bits at the same time for the same reason and have been inactive the same period, symmetry demands I also request my bit back at the sams time. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As above: Welcome back. Standard 24-hour hold; no concerns. 28bytes (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - welcome back! WJBscribe (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spartaz: Good man. We always need more Humbug  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...zah! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    I noticed that 2FA has been recently pushed through for WP:INTADMIN as an office action. Are Bureaucrat accounts currently required to have 2FA? If not this creates a security hole. Crazynas t 19:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No such requirement to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 'yet' at least, WMF is still working on their requirements, along with the mechanics for it. These topics are being currently reviewed by WMF Trust and Safety team along with the development Security group. — xaosflux Talk 20:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is currently no requirement for bureaucrats to have 2FA implemented and as a condition for holding the user rights. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only security requirements for advanced permission holders are outlined at WP:STRONGPASS. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crazynas: I hadn't heard of this. Can you link to the relevant information? Thanks! --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Deskana discussion on the Interface Admins Noticeboard There are also Village Pump and AN discussions (which is how I found out). I don't know where the technical office action is, from my understanding they just starting sending e-mails to the relevant users. Xaosflux might know more. Crazynas t 20:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deskana and Crazynas: the WMF team is still scrambling on this, but have said they will post their policy online soon, then we can update our reference. — xaosflux Talk 20:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Resysop request (Hamster Sandwich)

     Not done due to lack of admin actions for five years prior to desysopping in 2014. Any further discussion can be taken elsewhere. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Hello! I would like to have "the hammer" back, please. Sincerely; Hamster Sandwich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster Sandwich (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

    • Facepalm Facepalm. Swinging by asking for the return of "the hammer" and explaining that the reason you have next to no edits in 4 years is because you've been sockpuppeting is definitely unlikely to endear you to the community. ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the definition has changed and I've not noticed, I'm sure "sockpuppeteering" is abusive use of multiple accounts or IPs. If Hamster Sandwich has been using alternate accounts and IPs to vandalize or otherwise disrupt then yes, it would be sockpuppeteering but there's no evidence they've done that and I doubt they would openly admit to editing anonymously if they had. While I see it as pointless to edit as an IP if you already have an account, calling it sockpuppetry seems extreme. Acalamari 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hamster Sandwich: Stick around for a few months, make helpful edits (while logged-in) to assure folks that you're up to speed with all of the changes to Wikipedia policy and practice that have occurred since you last adminned, and an RFA will go much better than doing one now without a recent track record. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment This is a perfect example of why re-adminning without an RFA for long inactive sysops is a bad idea: Appearently I have to stand for election again, and I hope I have your vote. I don't even know if people can still solicit help from their WP "friends", but... there it is. I am not blaming Hamster Sandwich at all but it shows the larger problem of giving the bit back/letting legacy admins keep it with their once a year edit but no real participation in a decade. I've been seeing stuff like this pop up a lot lately where someone who rfa'd in 2005 suddenly comes back and hasn't edited since 2007 aside from the required 1/year and has absolutely no understanding of current community consensus, culture or policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I'm going to mark this declined and encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the underlying policy issues to do so separate from this specific request. As always, please follow the principle of constant respect when dealing with other editors, including those who are new or are returning to the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

          • I must say, the incivility level has really ratcheted up since I was active. To characterize a valid question in this forum as "Swinging by" is demeaning to the project. I would ask you to reign in your impulse to insult and diminish other editors. Furthermore... "Sockpuppet"? "Facepalm"? What was the other comment... oh yes.... the whole "endearment" aspect that has been expressed by two editors here (Or are they really two people? They used the same word! Better check to make sure it's not the same IP address...) . I was not aware that people had to endear themselves. I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount. Am I wrong? ** "Absolutely no understanding" is a pretty sweeping indictment. And suddenly were talking about a decade. I see the revocation of my admin privileges as from 2014. Please try to reign in your impulses towards exaggeration. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I was under the impression that competency, good work within the project and steadfast and productive work that improves the project is paramount." Quite correct. So why not just get on with it instead of dishing out accusations? Have you heard of WP:AGF? Leaky Caldron 20:31, 28 November 2018 (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.

    Refactor of Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship

    Head on over to Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship to provide your input regarding the wording of that policy. 28bytes (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    I have refactored this section as it has become unclear due to a series of tweaks to the inactivity policy. My intent was to express the same policy more clearly.

    The text of the 5 year "no admin actions" rule was previously ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to mean that the five years had to occur prior to de-adminship for inactivity. I don't think that was ever the intent, and I've made that clear in the refactoring. There has also been some ambiguity as to whether the two "lengthy inactivity" provisions apply to voluntary resignations as well as to de-adminship for inactivity. I have codified what I understand to be the current practice. Please take a look, and make any corrections you see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @UninvitedCompany: Looking at the RfC, I think that change may not reflect the original intent. The RfC proposal was: "I would therefore propose that any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back, and would need to pass a new RFA to regain the tools". This requires: (a) an admin does not use tools for five years, and (b) is subsequently desysopped. That is, the five years of no logged actions have to happen before the desysopping. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I was referring to as the "awkward" part, as it didn't quite match the closing statement - perhaps this should be followed up at WT:ADMIN? — xaosflux Talk 20:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad something positive happened... Initially my reading was "Admins who have been removed due to inactivity can re-apply at Bureaucrats Noticeboard. I was not aware of any further codicil until the comments started coming. Some helpful, others not-so-much... Keep up the good work! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing statement may have given rise to the awkwardness but I think the original proposal by Beeblebrox is clear per Kevin above. I would support the current wording by UninvitedCompany but I think that need to be proposed and gain consensus first. -- KTC (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a goofy RFC because while there was a clear consensus to do something, it was far less clear exactly what that something was. The original proposal and the closing statement don't match, and there are some conflicting alternative proposals in the comments. Making matters worse there were fewer participats in the discussion, despite this being a policy that affects many people, than there are for a typical RFA that affects one. Finally, I am actually far more concerned that we have a clear policy than I am about the mechanics. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am becoming more inclined to ask for arbitration due to the inconsistencies present at the time of my request. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Hamster Sandwich. I thought I'd pop up with two hats on. An Arb and a 'crat. As an Arb, I'll say, Arbcom has no jurisdiction over the crats in this matter, and the decision to return tools after inactive is down to WP:RESYSOP and the 'crat's judgement. So, if you ask there, that's what I'll say there too. As a 'crat, however, I'll point out that as much as there's some grey area over an unclear close at an RfC - the RfC was clear that admins should not be automatically returned the tools after a period of lengthy activity. However, even if we were looking at the RESYSOP policy from a year ago [1] before the RfC, it still had provisions for lengthy inactivity. This isn't a new policy, and while it needs to be agreed what the exact numbers should be, your lack of admin activity for such a long period clearly makes you ineligible per the RfC outcome. WormTT(talk) 23:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) 1) What exactly would you be asking ArbCom to arbitrate on? 2) Whichever wording the crats goes with, you would not qualify for a re-sysop by simple BN request as you both i) haven't had a logged admin action in the last 5 years and ii) didn't have a logged admin action for 5 years and subsequently desysopped for inactivity. -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have decided that the prospect of reapplying is much too daunting. Although I will never do anything to diminish this project, I will henceforth do nothing to enhance it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Seems like a bit of a temper tantrum to me. I suspect that if you spent several months becoming familiar again with the site and all the updated policies and guidelines (or spent the time showing that you are familiar with them, if you believe you are already knowledgeable in that area), you wouldn't have too much trouble at an RfA. Since 2009, you haven't even edited the site 100 times, and many of those edits (about 25-30 or so, I didn't do an exact count) are here on this page or in related discussions about you not getting the bit back. You seem far too eager to get the bit for someone with so little recent experience, so I think our decision to decline your request was absolutely the correct one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling someone they're having a "temper tantrum" has been helpful exactly zero times in the history of the universe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither has telling people which words to (not) use. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. It often helps with the smart, non-asshole ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one flinging around epithets. Please stop name-calling. There's no reason to be rude. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I was punching up. You were punching down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You were the only one punching. I made an observation of a behavior and offered a suggestion on how to resolve the issue. You resorted to name-calling. Like your edit summary said: there's a difference. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note it was opened on 31 December 2017 and closed only on 3 March 2018 and advertised on WP:CENT and consensus was clear. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2018 (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.

    Level 1 desysop of Orangemike

    Orangemike (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)

    Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

    Supporting: BU Rob13, Premeditated Chaos, Opabinia regalis, Mkdw

    For the Arbitration Committee;

    ~ Rob13Talk 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pursuant to the above, please remove the sysop flag. Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Orangemike For the Arbitration Committee; --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing... — xaosflux Talk 04:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done by 28bytes already. — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Xaosflux, I hit the button before I saw your note. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, this is one situation where people falling over each other to do the work is greatly appreciated. Thank you both for being so quick to action this. ~ Rob13Talk 04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactive admins for December 2018

    The following admins can be desysopped for inactivity:

    Thanks to all of them for their service to Wikipedia. Graham87 11:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Doing... — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=871493479"