Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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
Worm That Turned	219	2	3	99	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	4 days, 17 hours	no	report

It is 16:43:40 on November 13, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

WP:RIP guidelines

It was suggested that a notice be placed here regarding a current discussion. Given the sobriety of the topic, I agree. We currently have a discussion underway to establish (what looks like "guidelines" at the moment) for how the passing of community members should be handled. I think it's probably best if a Bureaucrat close the matter when the time comes. I'm guessing on this one, but maybe 5-7 days total? The discussion is at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians Thank You, and Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the 27th would be acceptable by the community as a closing date — Ched :  ?  09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm...this has been running far past its scheduled close time, is anyone going to close it? Matt (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus (or lack of it) seems rather obvious for the majority of the proposals; not sure why it needs a bureaucrat to "officially" close it. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll close it then. Expect Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines to be coming up soon. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. All closed. I've put {{proposedguideline}} on the page because there are still a few aspects of the process that I believe were not fully ironed out. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good from here; nicely done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I didn't want to be pushy about it, and after asking a few of the experienced Wikipedians, I got the impression it was best to just wait things out, and let the community come to any closing decisions. Nice job on the guideline proposal Biblio, I appreciate that! I really like the way you handled the "blocking" issue. I'll be on a wiki-break for a bit, but I'll try to follow up when I get back. If one of you guys wants to go ahead and delete: User:Ched Davis/Deceased wikipedian proceedures that would be fine by me, otherwise I'll find a suitable tag for it when I get back. thx again ;) — Ched :  ?  08:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, and I concur with the above - nicely done indeed. Pedro :  Chat  08:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny how it turns out

In my second RfB, there was significant concern as to how I would perform with username changes, and much less concern about RfA's. Since the time I have, thankfully, passed RfB, all I have done is usernames and I haven't had the opportunity to close a single RfA. Go figure -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I figure most opposes made on frivolous things like demanding "experience" with renaming are stupid - and you've been proven right. Much like people who get opposed for "not enough edits" yet make excellent admins. Really, the result of your RFA/B is generally separate from your ability to use tools well. Majorly talk 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

CHU is the easiest job ever. Seriously, anyone with at least 10% brain usage can teach themselves how to rename users in no time. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about that — I've seen some pretty confusing usurps... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One one of my RfBs (the third one, I think), there was concern I only had 14 combined edits to the CHU pages. I now have 550+. Oh well. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

When I ran, it was fairly obvious that I didn't really have a clue about changing usernames. Infact, the word "username" was mentioned only twice, one in a question that asked "Do you think the changing usernames page needs more help?", and the other in my answer to that question. Times change... then we come full circle. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Flip side of this: in my RfA, I said I expected to spend time at WP:RFPP. In actuality, I've spent barely any time there in the two and a half years since. Just goes to show it's damn-near impossible to predict how your wiki-career will go... EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually offline, it seems, when RfAs close and similarly have spent nearly all my Crat time at CHU, where I've racked up a ton of edits too. And I similarly received some opposition for my lack of familiarity with the username processes. I'd be only too happy to close a load more RfAs, but there's been something of an RfA famine in the last year or so. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more that there's a ton more bureaucrats that are actually active. I mean, if you look at WP:CRATSTATS, you see that before I was promoted, Taxman and Redux were the most active at closing RFAs. Then, I was promoted, and I became the most active. Then after me, WJBscribe was promoted and he pretty much took over. After him though, its been pretty balanced. I'm still as available as I was when I was closing all those RFAs on my own, but there's about six other bureaucrats also as available. This system is preferable. :-) --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Temp sysop an alternate account?

Resolved

 – Sysopped by Deskana. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you temporarily sysop my alternate account Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)? I've been given oversight for the audit subcommittee and I'm not entirely clear which of the different deletion and revision hiding/suppression features are available to admins and which to oversighters. I figure it would be easier to temporarily make my old account an admin rather than try and have the oversight flag removed from my main account. I'll give it back in a couple of days after I do some testing and familiarize myself with the different interfaces. (My original user name was Thatcher131, after I renamed, I recreated the old account to prevent impersonation. I'll post from that account to show I still control it.) Thanks. Thatcher 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is me again, I still control this account. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing we normals can do is delete and selectively restore the revisions we want, leaving the undesired revisions in the deleted history, viewable only to admins. –xeno ^talk 18:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Partly I'm trying to figure out how the interface looks to each kind of user, and how the log entries look for each kind of action. Currently, actions that are limited to users with "oversight" permission can appear in the oversight log, the suppression log, and the deletion log, and some actions that ordinary admins can do also appear in the suppression log. I can read the manual all day but the best way for me to understand it is to actually use the buttons a couple of times. If I'm going to "audit" oversight I'd like to have a good understanding of what they can do and how the actions are logged. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't see the revisions that you delete with revdelete, even if you do "allow admins to still view them", because we do not have access to Special:HideRevision, or whatever page you use to restore them, and we do not have the "show/hide" links in the page history. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't object to this request, it seems reasonable enough. –xeno ^talk 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, tell us what does 131 stand for? Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If possible, I'd really rather have test.wikipedia.org be used for testing rather than the live site. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's not like he will be *doing* anything, he'll just be looking at the interface. — Jake Wartenberg 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The interface is not for random testing. Test wikipedia would be the perfect place to have a look. Majorly talk 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the test wiki is set up with exactly the same versions of RevisionDelete and Extension:Oversight. I've heard than enwiki's installation has some idosyncracies. Thatcher 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the config file (warning: kinda large), I don't see anything different between test.wikipedia and en.wikipedia (with regard to RevisionDelete and Oversight, at least). It's not a huge deal to use the production site, but there are advantages to separating testing from actual logs. /me shrugs. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins have the "deleterevision" right on testwiki. Mr.Z-man 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My understanding is that the only difference between testwiki and enwiki is that admins on test.wiki have the deleterevision permission, while enwiki admins do not. As noted, the RevisionDelete mechanism is divided into two; anyone with the deleterevision permission can hide edit summaries and usernames, while oversighters also get the suppressrevision permission, which adds the additional checkbox "hide this edit from admins and lock this interface". That is, oversighters can hide an edit like other revision-hiders, and then lock the RevisionDelete interface so that 'mere' revision-hiders can no longer view or change the settings. On enwiki the point is moot, as no one other than oversighters have deleterevision in the first place; so there is no difference between the two levels. So in fact testwiki is a more representative demonstration of what would happen if the ability to hide revisions 'normally' were given to administrators. So using testwiki is a bad idea, as it'll give you the wrong impression, but essentially all you need to know is that enwiki admins have no access whatsoever to Special:RevisionDelete (new system) or Special:HideRevision (old system); we never see the "show/hide" or "change visibility" links; we cannot view the suppression log, oversight log, or those bits of the logging that end up in the deletion log. We cannot view hidden users on Special:ListUsers, nor hide/unhide them on the block form (although that, technically, is a separate permision to Oversight itself).

The more I think about it, and write down how it looks, the more I realise that you've actually got a good point: particularly wrt the logs, there's no substitute for being able to see with your own eyes what's going on. We already have admins running adminbots on separate accounts, breaking the "one flag one user" rule is not taboo. As long as you don't take any admin actions from the account (and why would you when you've got your main one), I can't see a problem with this. Happy‑melon 18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just give him the flag, where's the harm? And if that doesn't work out, just ask a friendly Steward to take away your oversight-rights temporarily, that should do the trick, too. :) --Conti|✉ 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think it's a huge problem. My alt account had a flag while I had trouble logging into my main... And then some admins have their flag permanently on an alt account... (rawr). –xeno ^talk 19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very risky. If it turns out that Thatcher needs to take some actions with one account or another for testing, he can always mark them 'Audit' or some such in the log. Compare the WP:New admin school, which allows new admins to check out the buttons and does not require them to go to a separate wiki for testing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this request is for a good reason, although I do not have enough technical skill to see the merits between using en and the test wikis. However The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin access according to WP:SOCK (not according to me, just that page I might add) so let's go careful before any can of worms is opened. Pedro :  Chat  19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there are significant differences between prior cases that caused concern and my request (I don't want a joke account, this is not an attempt to deceive, etc). I'm not going to hold my breath until I turn blue or anything, this would simply be very helpful to me understanding my new responsibilities, and would be temporary. Thatcher 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Requests from ArbCom subcommittee members are good enough for me. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was on ArbCom's Working Group for Ethnic Wars which is sort of like a subcommittee. Can I have a 'crat flag?  :) --JayHenry (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but as an attempt to meet you in the middle, I am prepared to offer you an indefinite block. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I'm willing to negotiate, can I possibly get a second opinion first? --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, it probably would have been better if we'd set up a Working Group against Ethnic Wars rather than the one you mention.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but for the fun of it, I think I'll concur with the first opinion due to your participation in these types of hate groups. :) On the main topic, I think this approval was a great idea since the new oversight abilities are really rather confusing. They don't 100% do what they say they do and it took quite some effort to figure them out when they were made available. - Taxman ^Talk 04:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand Thatcher's response. I use my non-sysop account to check stuff out through "new eyes" every once and a while, just to make sure I stay grounded as an editor. Kind of refreshing sometimes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should view things logged out as well, every once in a while. Editing logged out can run into problems of course, but that can find things that just viewing logged out doesn't show you. I kind of hope the Usability group (or something similar) does eventually get around to testing how friendly certain areas are by using test accounts. Kind of like those Michelin Guide reviewers that turn up unannounced. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AGK: sysop flag restoration.

I respectfully request the restoration of my administrator rights. My resignation, on 28 December 2008 (which was requested to allow me to focus my energy on a demanding RL project), was not made under controversial circumstances—cf., meta:Steward requests/Permissions/2008-12#AGK@enwiki.

Many thanks,

AGK 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done; welcome back, AGK. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. AGK 11:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back :-) SoWhy 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My day is now 1000% percent better. Welcome back, AGK. Xclamation point 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a "full of fresh flowers and scurrying squirrels kind" of welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! AGK is back. MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely great news. bibliomaniac15 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, AD, don't forget to update WP:FORMER. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words, chaps. :-) AGK 21:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a sight for sore eyes. Useight (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

De-crat

Hello all. Just a quick request for one of our learned stewards instigate the removal of my 'crat flag. I have done my utmost to serve the community since my RFB but recent events, not limited to the date-delinking debacle, have highlighted the conflict between the perceived responsibilities I have in my position as a cautious 'crat and the approach I take here as a serious and dedicated editor. I took on the role over 14 months ago and despite my five month sabbatical, I managed to deal with some RFA promotions and quite a few renames without too many complaints. All that notwithstanding, the very last thing I want to do is bring the role of a Wikipedian 'crat into disrepute. Several editors within this Wikipedia will doubtless see this as "just desserts", and good luck to them.

My only goal here, as it always has been, is to improve Wikipedia; to generate featured content in accordance with our policies and guidelines, and with no ulterior motive nor any kind of disruption in mind. Article quality is paramount; without that in mind, 'crats, admins and the rest of the community might as well head back to Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. So, much as I would hate for this to deteriorate into an Oscar meltdown, thanks to everyone who has supported me in this role, most significantly Dweller and the much-missed WJB. As Douglas Adams would have said, So long, and thanks for all the trout... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A steward has followed your request. Best wishes to you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Thank you very much for your service as a 'crat. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you reconsider? Your valuable work as a bureaucrat has not been put into question at all and I doubt that anybody believes that your conduct isn't befitting of a bureaucrat. You've done some fantastic work in the role nobody was ever suggesting you lose your crat bit. As far as I'm concerned (and I suspect most others), the date linking case is completely separate and it's no way certain at this point that you're going to have any findings made against you. Even if they are, that doesn't bring your bureaucrat role into disrepute. Please do think about this again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What Ryan said mainly. Your cratship and this issue, or any other, are not in competition and one does not interfere with the other. I doubt anyone would claim that you abused your crat-position for anything at all and as such there is no reason to give back your crat-bit because of this or any issue. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, SoWhy, but as you may be intimately aware of, there are some elements within this Wikipedia who use just about every editing opportunity to malign my fulfillment of the role of 'crat. To suggest that "nobody was ever suggesting you lose your crat bit" is kind but simply untrue. It's a real shame as I never felt that I'd abused any position the community had generously allowed me to take, but I have no desire to bring the position into (further?) disrepute. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misphrased this. It's natural that people who you are in dispute with will say that you are not fitting for the role. But not even Tennis expert claimed that you have abused your crat-status, just that you are (in his opinion) not to be a crat. But if we were to expect unanimity with every decision to make someone an admin or crat, almost all of us (myself included of course) would not be made admins or crats, so that cannot be a sensible reason to resign this status. What I meant is that I know of noone who can impartially claim these things and the reaction here proves that quite well. So I hope you reconsider your decision, maybe after a few weeks/months if you need it. Regards SoWhy 06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you never brought the role into any disrepute. There will always be elements that are discontent with any performance - if you were perfect in every possible way, people would complain about that. In your shoes I would only be concerned if complaints were significant in number or from those whose opinion you particularly respect, but it is your decision and I echo the folks above who thank you for your work. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I second Avruch. We had our differences TRM, but I have never thought you were not a good crat. Like others, I hope you one day reconsider, because I know where your heart is. Best. Synergy 20:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rambling Man, you are a valued, trusted editor here. We're bound to encounter conflicts along the way. I'm saddened that this conflict has led to your resignation. I hope you continue your devotion to Wikipedia, and I would gladly renominate you for Bureaucrat if you ever so desire. Cheers, and see you in the funny pages, Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You say nominate, but wouldn't he qualify for reflagging, being a voluntary stepping down? (I'm just curious, I understand that a re-nom would also help to prove to Rambling Man we still want him flagged.) –xeno ^talk 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that TRM could ask for the 'crats rights back without RFB unless a substantial amount of time had passed and he was totally inactive. This is a hit to the limited resource we have of quality bureaucrats. However I well understand that TRM thinks this is the honourable way to do things. Perhaps the editor cited in the diff above will realise what is best for Wikipedia and revoke his comments thus enabling a re-cratship sans-drama.Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This would likely become one of those RfB questions in the future ;-) Some would say that his stepping down due to the issues cited above would mean that he did so "under a cloud" thus would need to go through the RfB process again. Others would say that the actions cited above have nothing to do with his role as crat, and thus should not have compelled him to step down. Personally, I fall into the later category, based on what little I read, I don't see the stuff cited above as interfering with your role as 'crat.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am incredibly saddened by this news, it is very sad that this date delinking dispute has ended up becoming so destructive. You have been both a good bureaucrat and administrator, as well one of Wikipedia's finest contributors, in my eyes. It is unfortunate that this has had no recognition by some in this dispute. These are however a minority, and I do also hope one day you will reconsider and run for bureaucratship again, and continue your great contributions in any case. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What a shame indeed. I'm glad to see you haven't resigned on Simple though. Majorly talk 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a shame indeed; you were a fine bureaucrat, and I advise you to reconsider. I hope that you shall stick around Wikipedia; your content work has been excellent, and we can always use editors :). I'd agree with those above as well; you have done nothing wrong with your role as a bureaucrat, and you would qualify for a reinstatement without an RfB. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has its share of not-so-prudent administrators. I encourage you, Rambling Man, to sit back, watch how events unfold over the next several weeks, take a deep breath, and contribute as an administrator at a less stressful (moderated) level; that is, tailor the scope of your admin duties so the shoe fits the foot. I take note of an administrator (a high school chemistry teacher) who merrily edits articles and entirely shuns admin-like behavior. Frankly, I think Wikipedia needs more admins with your temperament and judgement, not less. Best wishes. Hope to see you back in the saddle soon. Greg L (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Very sad indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is quite an unfortunately loss. Good to see that you've decided to retain the sysop flag and remain an editor, however. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's an absolute shame that you have felt compelled to take this route, Rambling Man. I strongly agree with Ryan Postlethwaite above that whatever happened in the date delinking situation is completely and utterly unrelated to your statuses as bureaucrat and administrator. I genuinely hope you will return to the position at some point in the future, and that you will not feel pressed to withdraw from editing or administrative duties in general. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for The Rambling Man to relinquish his cratship; a minor skirmish is part of the job, and part of the pressure. I stand firm in the face of stress, however unconvincing that may appear; but I am not going to give up my admin flag without a fight. Rambling Man, take a break, perhaps, but don't be deterred by a short-term setback. Please reconsider. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a catch-22, I suppose. There are a handful of bureaucrats who ought to step down. The Rambling Man, in showing his sincere willingness to step down, however, has proven that he has the integrity we're looking for and should stay. It's a double whammy because his integrity is further reminder -- a harsh spotlight -- on those who ought to step down but lack his character and commitment to both the role of bureaucrat and the project itself, and instead hang on to their roles of power with a mortal grip. --JayHenry (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an objective party when it comes to the linking issue, so now't about that. However, I have recently become more intimately acquainted with the harassment within the 'tennisphere' that TRM and others continually face. Despite this, he has offered me help of all sorts, and sound advice. I do wish him well. One editor may be jumping for joy, but it's obvious from the comments above that there are many, many more sad faces out there because TRM stepped down as a 'crat. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)