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 WP:BN WP:BNB 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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience. To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below. Crat tasks RfAs 0 RfBs 0 Overdue RfBs 0 Overdue RfAs 0 BRFAs 8 Approved BRFAs 0 Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate No current discussions. Recent RfAs: (successful, unsuccessful) Recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) It is 09:08:42 on February 17, 2022, according to the server's time and date.

Bureaucrat tasks: Assigning bot status (talk) Requests for adminship (talk) Inactive administrators (talk) Inactive bureaucrats (talk) 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

Brookie[edit]

With sadness, I note that Marine 69-71 announced last month the passing of Brookie (talk · contribs), a registered editor for 17 years and an admin for all but the first 8 months of that span. Could a bureaucrat please take the necessary administrative actions? Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've desysopped and filed a report for a global lock to the account at m:Steward requests/Global. bibliomaniac15 05:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is very sad news to hear, and I hope that his family is okay. I took some text from both this discussion and the announcement, and I added a short entry here to the list of those we have lost over the years of this project's existence. Feel free to edit and expand, of course... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked users in user groups[edit]

Hi. I figure bureaucrats and admins watching this page probably have some spare time. Can someone please go through the blocked users in user groups (configuration) database report at your leisure and clean it out a bit? Thank you in advance. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:INDEFRIGHTS says no. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Also several of these blocks are p-blocks or temporary. Removing the right for indeffed users seems quite pointless. CUPIDICAE💕 21:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. What's a p-block? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume partial block/page block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

MZMcBride It is incredibly unwise of you to undo a crats close of this beat-to-death topic that comes up every month. CUPIDICAE💕 01:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae. This noticeboard is pretty vigorously archived for reasons I don't fully understand, so I don't see a recent discussion on this page. I briefly skimmed Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46 and didn't see a discussion about blocked users there. Am I missing one?

It seems rather peculiar that your response to multiple people raising the same topic is to be so hostile. If many users are independently raising the same issue, perhaps that's a sign. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat here. There's nothing "incredibly unwise" from starting this thread. Even if this topic were discussed "every month", which it isn't, MZMcBride is allowed to bring it up. We're not going to block him for starting a conversation that people aren't forced to contribute to. Acalamari 14:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Acalamari: I do think this is a bit of a "wrong venue" situation though; we bureaucrats would only need to be involved for bots, sysops, and intadmins. For bots, we normally will handle such issues at WP:BOTN, sysops need to go to arbcom, so that leaves intadmins which really belong at WP:AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pppery. Thanks for the link. I'm fairly sure it was standard practice to remove user groups from blocked users on this wiki in the past. The page history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Blocked users in user groups provides pretty clear evidence of this. It also didn't take long to find a recent (February 11, 2022) example of this practice: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User%3AMasterknighted>. I'm not sure the info page you linked to is accurate. Even in 2019, you can find plenty of examples such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=rights&user=&page=User%3A6Packs&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=>.

While I don't really agree with the practice of removing rights from inactive users, this wiki adopted a fairly aggressive practice of doing so. In this context, it seems rather strange that indefinitely blocked users would retain access to the "abusefilter" user group, for example. Or browsing the current report, there's a user who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. It seems rather strange that we'd actively want that user to be part of the IP block exempt user group. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

They're blocked, they can't edit but they can appeal. And if that appeal is granted, their editing rights are re-instated. Unless you want every block to be a community discussion about removal of rights, this conversation is pointless. CUPIDICAE💕 02:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No need for hostility, MZMcBride isn't exactly a rookie. If they are blocked, and still have the abusefilter bit, obviously they can't edit but do they still have view access? Considering that is a pretty advanced bit, I can see potential for concern. Rollbacker, etc. not so much. Not picking sides, just asking questions, as an old admin here that hasn't asked them before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, nice to see you still active. :-) I did a quick query of users who are currently blocked who have had their rights modified since January 1, 2020. The results are at Special:Permalink/1071331802 and they're pretty rough. However, in this output, we can see recent examples such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Septrillion> or <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:GraniteSand> or <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Lazy_Maniik> or perhaps even <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=User:Petruccio_Salema> that indicate that the practice of removing user rights from blocked users continues. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: may be interested to know about a recent thread at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions, where I pointed out that removal continues to be done on a case-by-case basis. Taking the case of the IPBE rights for someone blocked for copyvios, there is basically no correlation between the two, and I suspect there would be no reason to avoid restoring the right if they were unblocked. That IPBE is going to expire in a few months, thanks to our temporary-granting policy. However I may revisit and potentially remove some of the other IPBEs over the next couple of years to keep things up to date. And I think you're right it may be time to remove that instance of abusefilter group. It's one of those rights where being blocked has not always reliably prevented access. But a list of blocked rollbackers? meh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: to answer your technical question, yes: site-blocked administrators, abusefilter helpers, abusefilter managers can all still make use of their enhanced "view" rights. However, as we are not empowered to remove admins without arbcoms blessing, and any of our 1,055 admins can deal with the AF groups - I don't think this is something that bureaucrats need to handle. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Admin are less a worry since there are so few and Arb is pretty fast to act if one really goes off the reservation. Abusefilter helpers and abusefilter managers are likely rare in the block logs (same for admin), but it does make you wonder when it is appropriate to remove certain high value access bits. It is something to think about, but not something I'm familiar enough to give answers to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit filter rights are dealt with at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard and can be removed by admins so there is no need for 'crat involvement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• While I am not at all in favor of any kind of wholesale purge of user rights of blocked users, I would note that the very first report on the dbase list appears to be the one and only edit filter manager who is blocked, and that their many blocks are mostly related to their making mass changes in an irresponsible fashion. WP:EFM states "widespread disruption of the entire encyclopedia can easily occur—even unintentionally—with the smallest of mistakes in changing edit filters" so I do think there is a case to be made that this one specific user should have that one specific right revoked, even though they cannot currently use it excpet to look at things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Per zzuuzz (above), there is some question whether blocked editors with the abuse filter bits are truly prevented from using the bit. This may be under certain circumstances only, but regardless, it would seem prudent to update policy and make it fairly standard to remove that bit under most indef block situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Zzuuzz: currently, if you are siteblocked you are prevented from using (abusefilter-modify), you are not prevented from using (abusefilter-view-private) or (abusefilter-log-private). But as noted above, this is something any admin can deal with. If someone wants to lobby to remove someone's EFM flag, they are welcome to open a thread at WP:EFN. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the EFM flag. If anyone wants to discuss this at WP:EFN, we can do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)