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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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	10
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Elli	0	0	0	0	Discussion	16:53, 7 June 2024	5 days, 12 hours	no	report

It is 04:05:45 on June 2, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Edited the main page followed by a series of rather strange edits. Needs to be de-admined until we find out what is going on.©Geni 07:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally crats can only act in the situations outlined by WP:B, and this doesn't seem to be one of those situations - I've emailed ArbCom so they can act if they wish. If the admin self-unblocks, and starts causing chaos, the stewards can be contacted, but right now it's not an emergency (it's difficult to unblock oneself). --Rschen7754 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Please compare Wikipedia:CRAT#Removal_of_permissions with Wikipedia:GRU#Stewards. Crats were both unavailable and unable to act in this circumstances, thus Steward intervention would be the only means of resolution. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geni was sent here by the Stewards, 4 of us (stewards) felt no action on our part was needed, as the user did only one potentially problematic edit and stopped once told to do so. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then even moreso that resolution stands, as the Stewards were the only users who should have been involved in deciding the situation. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, arbcom did it themselves [1] Hot Stop 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User has now been desysopped by stewards following a request on meta from the Arbitration Committee. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except in very clear emergencies (and we're talking "deleting the main page and blocking everyone in sight" emergencies), bureaucrats don't have the support of the community to act in these cases of their own accord. Stewards, also, will be very unlikely to act at the request of a general community member except in those cases. The Arbitration Committee is solely responsible for carrying out emergency procedures and authorizing one of these people to desysop someone. In this case, the Committee investigated the situation and found that an emergency desysop was needed to prevent disruption to the project, however the on-wiki actions of Centrx did not quite rise to the level needed for action without ArbCom approval. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Main is not technically doable anymore :) In any case, from a steward perspective, unless the user is either clearly a compromised account (in which case an account lock is the appropriate measure, not a desysop which can be left for arbcom or local 'crats to take care of) or is clearly out of control and not containable by normal administrative instruments (ie the guy's self unblocks or keeps using administrative rights while blocked and causing major distruption that way, etc.), the Stewards are not the proper avenue. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of accuracy, deleting the Main Page is still perfectly possible. You just have to know how to do it. :p (And if anyone cares, yes, I know how to that. But I'm not planning on sending us back four years). Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please remove my access to the administrative tools. I'm stepping down for violating their recommended use (specifically, wheel-warring), so they probably shouldn't be returned to me until such time as I've successfully passed another RfA. My apologies to Laser brain and SandyGeorgia. Thanks, Steve ^T • C 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth (Non-administrator comment), I think there was no valid justification for the wheel warring and would suggest — as Steve already has in his request — that this removal would be under a cloud. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth—and for the avoidance of all doubt—I agree. Even though it had a very specific aim (apart from the simple act of unblocking), the reversal wasn't based in policy, guideline, or any other recommended use of the tools. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said at ANI, I think that you had to unblock Malleus was unfortunate—not necessarily incorrect, but it was under unfortunate circumstances—and I think you've done the right thing here to ask for the desysop. We need more admins like you (ironically). Best wishes, —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry, but having just looked over the situation I have to say it leaves me supremely unconcerned. I really don't see much problem here (and just yesterday I was thinking how stupid it is that nearly every time Malleus gets blocked he's unblocked before the block expires). I can see and understand the arguments on both sides, in this instance, and I can see how they both have merit. Maybe it's just because I seem to have an extra helping of empathy or something, I don't know. Oh well, like I said, checking out the situation leading to this post definitely gives me a "what, is that all?" feeling compared to how serious this post made it sound. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Steve's action, and I think the crats should reject this request for de-sysop as unnecessary. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Whether or not you support Steve's action, it was clearly not wheel-warring by our definition of the term, and I don't see any other factors that would make this desysopping "under a cloud" (involved, etc). Indeed, I would be minded to reject the request outright. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Steve's admin rights in accordance with his request. Although the question of whether or not he relinquished the tools under a cloud / in controversial circumstances is ultimately a matter of discretion for the bureaucrat(s) who consider any future request for their restoration, it is likely that the circumstances of this resignation will be found to necessitate a fresh RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Without prejudice to a future crat's review, I regrettably agree with Will. Even though I highly doubt Steve would have been desysopped for his action, it definitely seems like point two of WP:RESYSOP ("with the effect[] of evading scrutiny of their actions") applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone resysop my account. I resigned as an admin back in November 2011 here uncontroversially as I needed a break. It's been almost 5 months and as I plan on contributing once more now, including some admin jobs, so I would like the admin bit back. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Welcome back. Maxim_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I am addressing this to the Bureaucrats since my question covers use of the Rename feature.) As we all know, offensive user names will sometimes spring up, clogging up the logs, and it strikes me that the policy regarding how to deal with these is rather ad hoc at the moment, and so would like some clarification on it. As far as I am aware, we currently have the following tools at our disposal:

1. RD2 log redaction (example i)
2. RD3 redaction (example ii)
3. Oversight
4. Renaming (example iii)
5. Locked (example iv)
6. Locked + Hidden (example v)
7. Locked + Suppressed, which I was told about on IRC – apparently it hides the user from all logs to all except Stewards, without itself leaving logs.

Now, my question is, when is each of these measures supposed to be used? As I say, at the moment it looks to me like the action taken depends on the whims of whoever notices the problem. More specifically, my questions are:

• Firstly, could I clarify what the difference between RD2 and RD3 is, with regard to offensive names? When is an account/page name one, but not the other? If they are interchangeable, perhaps we could reword the criteria to collapse them into one, or to move all offensive titles to one and malicious code etc. to the other?
• Am I correct in thinking that Oversight is never used in cases of offensive account names, or is it sometimes appropriate to request it?

In each of the following cases, which of RevDel, Rename, Lock, etc. is appropriate?

• General profanity, without an obvious target, but genuinely offensive/unpleasant to read: User:@#!
  • Edits on en.wiki only
  • Edits on more than one wiki (and the same question for the rest of the examples)
• Profanity targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_is_a_@#!
• Profanity targeted at real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_is_a_@#! / Fooians_are_@#!s
• Potentially libellous statements targeted at a Wikipedia user: User:AdminX_sells_heroin
• Potentially libellous statements about real-world individuals/groups: User:CelebrityX_sells_heroin

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth clarifying that Oversight is simply Suppression, not actually Oversight, so it's just a step further than #1 or #2. I used to do #4, but realized it just created more logs that needed deletion. I think #3 and #7 are the best for libellous things (of either target) and #2 and #6 for simple profanity. MBisanz ^talk 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd still like some more clarification. To take a concrete case, I have now RD3ed all the logs pertaining to example ii—click "(Logs)" next to the date and time of the linked-to log entry. (I realise this account was active a long time ago, but I think it will serve as a good example case.) Would you recomment (or would you have recommended, were this account recent) #6, #7, or neither? And, just to be clear, what would change were (a) #6 or (b) #7 to be applied? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, redacting the logs related to User:卍 卍 卍 (attack site URL) 卍 卍 卍 was unnecessary since that account was from 2006, and it is unlikely that anybody would be looking that far back through the logs. Additionally, it is impossible to globally lock or suppress the account since accounts that old do not have SULs (see this). Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I say, I'm mainly using this as a test case for what one is meant to do when (and and I do not feel that this is an academic discussion—this was fairly recent, for instance); and besides, I don't see the harm in redacting the logs? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it was recent, I would have locked and hid it because of the potential damage from the attack URL. I wouldn't have done #7, as I understand that feature is still a bit buggy, but Snowolf is the expert on that. MBisanz ^talk 15:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I say, if someone had already locally RevDeled all the occurrences of the user name in local logs (as I have done in this case), what would Locking + Hiding achieve/change? Alternatively, if these entries had not been RevDeled, would Locking + Hiding automatically RevDel them? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would hide it in the ListUser list, but not revdel its edits/actions. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my admin permissions. It appears this is now the way admins can behave and the community has no problem with it, nor with them dismissing any attempt to call them out as cabalism. For the time being, I'm no longer willing to remain an admin in this climate. Not like I was really using my permissions, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on hold for 24 hours . I'm introducing a practice from Meta that makes eminent sense. I asked Heim privately and he does not object to the delay. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bureaucrats

I was previously Francium12 where I had about 10,000 edits before I requested a right to vanish after a period of disillusionment with Wikipedia.

I have since returned and now edit under this name where I lack autopatrol and any 'reputation' as an editor of good standing. Because of this much more of my content is now a) drive by tagged like hell b) put up for AfD. It has given me a rather scary insight into how Wikipedia must be for new editors...

Is there any way I can be "unvanished" under my old account as I realise I’ve lost the reputation I built up over a number of years - frankly it is a little frustrating trying to generate content on this account! I have also made 9 edits under the old account. I’m sure I’ve breached numerous Wikipedia policies in the process! Quickbeam44 (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(nonadmin response) Hello Quickbeam/Francium. There are 3 issues here.

• Your recent article contributions being tagged. Based on a quick scan of your current talk page and some of those articles, I think the issue is that Wikipedia's philosophy has changed in the past few years. Your articles are around the boundary of what is considered notable, and our expectations of what is adequate sourcing right off the bat have increased from what they were a few years ago. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is reality.
• If indeed you are the vanished Francium12, then vanishing is supposed to have been final. You're not supposed to come back and put the mantle back on again when you feel like it. Vanishing is an exceptional measure for individuals who are not only "disillusioned" (who can just stop editing!) but who have stumbled onto some minefield where they really need to eradicate all traces. But then that's that, it's gone! You don't come back and revivify later and presumably there was a reason why you wanted the past buried. The process wonks may now either refuse your request or paradoxically rush to un-vanish you since you have actually not vanished and That is Not Allowed - regardless it shows you are rather confused about what you want.
• I think you're right that we make genuine new users feel a bit unwelcome by templating etc. But looking at your talk page you haven't been abused, you've gotten good advice, and some friendly and helpful (if probably semi-templated) advice. But it seems like you've continued to do more of the same rather than adjusting your behaviour. It's quite possible that if you were benefitting from an old-timer reputation, you might be cut a bit more slack. But the solution seems to be to modify your behaviour rather than try to exhume your reputation.

Though the above is quite harsh, welcome back and I hope you find a way to contribute where you will feel your contributions are valuable and valued. Martinp (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An option for him would be to simply put a note on the top of his page that indicates whom you used to be with a link to said page. That being said, when a user returns---even after vanishing---I think it is better to allow said user to tie his/her old account to their new one if they so choose. A) It helps avoid allegations of evasion/socking. B) It is in the open. C) Think of our former 'crat who vanished, then came back once (possibly twice) with new accounts. While I suspect that most vanished users who return with new accounts succeed in keeping their old name secret, many will ultimately be identified. This is especially true for users with a jaded past. When that happens it often results in turmoil and nastiness. I would ALWAYS prefer openness. At minimum, even when coming back anonymously, users returning from vanished should notify ArbCOM of their past just in case.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another data point in support of the notion that we should rethink our RTV policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that's a problem with the RTV policy. Could you elaborate? Regards SoWhy 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a big problem is that it's unrealistic: human nature is to change one's mind, and vanished users change their minds all the time, and we don't have an elegant or consistent way of letting them do that. Just about anything else in Wikipedia has a straightforward "undo" mechanism, but this is one that's "designed" not to be undone, even though in practice that's not the case. Vanishings are undone, but haphazardly and often with bad feelings from many directions. 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RTV is designed to be un-revertable because it's not supposed to be reverted. RTV means you're gone, for good, and never coming back, ever. To wit: Courtesy vanishing is discretionary and may be refused. It is not intended to be temporary. It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity. -- Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing

Realistically, the majority of the people who invoke the policy are those who have turned themselves into pariahs on Wikipedia, who don't want their malfeasance redounding to them in the real world. "This user has been banned from Wikipedia" is not a search result most people want coming back from Google. RTV is a courtesy we extend to remedy that.

If, as you say, it is human nature to change one's mind, then that's the best reason I've heard yet for completely eliminating RTV as inherently unworkable. Because we can never be sure that someone really is gone for good. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't know for sure... even people who leave with the full intent to be gone for good can and do come back. Often via other names (ala the original poster.) As it currently stands, most of those people probably remain anonymous... does anybody really believe that Ecoletage/Pator Theo is really gone? Does anybody believe that Rlvese might not have a new account from which he's currently editing? Some people leave and want to start over for a legitimate reason. Some people NEED to leave for valid reasons (they used hteir real name or it got out.) But having a process that isn't ammendable to reality is short sighted. If a user that vanished returns and wants his/her old name to be associated with the new one, then what reasonable argument can be made to prevent it? "Oh no, you can't edit here, you vanished?" or "Oh no, we don't want to tie you to your past where you were a known vandal/FA contributor, because you vanished?" Those arguments are bilked with beaucracy. If a user returns and wants their old name to be tied to their new account, then we should ENCOURAGE that. The current RTV policy is good and well intended, but it needs provisions for the real world. (Marraige is supposed to be forever, but people get divorced all the time. Divorce is supposed to be the end, but divorcees get back together all the time.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]