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 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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for

bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 06:17:04 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

I note that, about a week ago, bureaucrat

• Maxim's comment on Fred Bauder's talk page
• Arbitration page

Discussion has been fragmented, making it difficult to follow. The situation as a whole raises questions of the proper boundaries between bureaucrats, the arbitration committee, stewards, the community as a whole, and to a lesser extent the election coordinators and election commission since the initial dispute took place on a page related to the elections.

I believe it is important that exceptional actions such as this be noted here so that all bureaucrats are aware of them. I also believe that further discussion with the wider community would be valuable and would hope that Maxim will participate. If this page is not the most suitable venue for that discussion, perhaps links to more suitable pages could be provided.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that, to a far greater extent than other activities at Wikipedia, the role of

WP:SNOW after 15-1 opposition. The provision allowing bureaucrats to de-sysop only those accounts where there is evidence that the account has been compromised barely passed, and has not since been amended. The intent at the time was to reserve these exceptional emergency cases to the stewards

.

I would also like to observe that I have reviewed Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause and do not believe that there has been any previous example of a bureaucrat de-sysopping anyone for cause in the absence of clear instructions from the Arbitration Committee. The most recent similar situations were in 2006-2008 and were performed by Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), and were controversial. I may have missed some cases since those that were ultimately resolved with the affected individual being re-sysopped are not indexed anywhere and are therefore difficult to find. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an arbitration case on the matter: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Maxim_(talk) 22:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I included a link to the case at the top of the section. Do you believe that discussion should take place on the case pages? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is good. Apparently I suck at reading today. :p Maxim_(talk) 22:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, my writing skills have been iffy all week. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assuming that the case would discuss the role of bureaucrats and have been reserving my (non-privileged, ordinary editor) analysis for its workshop. However if the bureaucrats would like to have the discussion here, then that's fine, too. Thanks for your historical info. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the way Maxim handled it, immediately and publicly posting their reasoning to the arbitration committee, was sufficient to make the IAR perfectly permissible, even for a crat.
  talk) 23:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Given that the so-called 'emergency' (whether or not it was an emergency- it had been 3 hours since the reblock and Fred has not unblocked himself again?) has subsided, shouldn't the permissions be restored to ultimately be decided on by the committee? Barring an injunction, temporary desysop motion, or similar... –xeno^talk 23:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an arbcom motion in effect. -- KTC (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. –xeno^talk 23:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• While a desysopping in this situation is, in itself, not unreasonable or unprecedented, it should not be overlooked that crats quite simply do not have the authority to perform discretionary desysoppings, even in emergency situations. If there is a pressing reason to do so, meaning something so serious and urgent that it cannot wait for either Arbcom or a Steward to act, then sure, an IAR desysopping would be reasonable for the protection of the project. However, that's not what happened. Self-unblocking is an abuse of the tools, repeatedly doing so is an additional offense, and yes, these acts make one subject to desysopping. But, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, it's not a bright line for desysopping, and while Fred was rightfully desysopped, nothing fundamentally gives crats the right to make that sort of judgment call, even though they have the technical ability. Yes, IAR is a thing, but I don't think it is all that reasonable to invoke IAR in order to usurp the authority to desysop, especially in a non-emergency situation where there is no risk of harm to the project. Tool misuse is scandalous, and tempers on all sides were already heated. An IAR desysop was an overreaction, and an understandable one that we can certainly let slide, but it was unnecessary, and while I have great respect for and confidence in our crats, including Maxim, and we should not let crats get into the habit of invoking IAR to perform discretionary desysops.  Swarm  talk  03:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:VPPOL might be a better place to ask questions like, "Should bureaucrats be allowed to perform desysopings without direction from Arbcom?", and "If so, when?". WP:BN is a little backwater. --Izno (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've said my 2c on the case page already, but wanted to add support to what Swarm said. I think it would be appropriate for a bureaucrat to do an emergency desysop IAR-style if the situation was ongoing, but once the threat of tool misuse (and particularly tool misuse that would harm the project) has passed, it should only be up to ArbCom to take action. I think it got struck in my comment on the case page, but I'll also reiterate that my concerns are not with Maxim or his actions, but rather what should be done in future cases. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the title, 'Bureaucrat', rather covers the issue, well; but maybe put this off until after the Arbitration Case. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Maxim's actions here. GAB^gab 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I too support Maxim's action. The situation had been pulling in more and more different administrators, and it was clear that Fred Bauder was not interested in discussing things since he was simply unblocking himself within minutes. Maxim's action stabilized things and reduced disruption to the project. I wouldn't want to see bureaucrats routinely taking it upon themselves to de-sysop administrators that they deemed unruly, but this was an unusual situation. So in this particular case, I believe that Maxim showed good judgment. --Elonka 08:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I only recently became aware of this cluster bleep, but after looking into it a bit I will add my endorsement (fwiw) to Maxim's IAR intervention. Swarm's analysis is solid, but this was a highly unusual circumstance. This kind of IAR action can be tolerated because it was immediately subject to review and could easily and quickly have been overturned. IAR is always going to be a judgement call, and I tend to take a very conservative view of it. (Invoking IAR should be safe legal and rare.) In this case I think the call was a reasonable one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If we want to emphasize that having the admin bit is not a big deal, then having it temporarily removed should similarly not be a big deal. I am in favour of bureaucrats having some leeway to make judgement calls about temporarily desysopping particularly to stop flagrant misuse and wheel-warring in the cold light of day. If it's found that concerns were unfounded, they can just re-sysop the account in question, no harm done. I think in this case the concern was Fred would continue to wheel war (we will never, of course, know if he would have done or not, there's little to be gained from speculating on this), and so I'll just add my little, near-meaningless endorsement of Maxim's actions here. Fish+Karate 09:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The psychosocial effects, for better or for worse, endure long after the bit is returned. In a project whose foundation is voluntary collaboration, that's a big deal. See FairProcess The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If admin is no big deal, than surely it would not have mattered that Fred remains an unblocked admin for a day or two. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not, if it were not for the wheel-warring, which is a Bad Thing. Fish+Karate 15:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not actually -- that's just the rule, so rules following somehow really, really matters for some people, but not at all for others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblockself

• Esanchez7587 (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)}

Please de-sysop, account has been compromised. Home Lander (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Home Lander. –xeno^talk 17:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised admin

• Esanchez7587 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Compromised admin account, has been globally locked. Please remove sysop bit or engage

Thanks for this Ivanvector. I'll alert the committee Worm^TT(talk) 17:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised account locked

Hello enwiki cratz.

I've just globally locked Esanchez7587, as he was clearly going rogue after few years of inactivity, which smelled like a compromised admin account.

This is just a notification, and no desysop was performed on my level: whether or not to desysop is your call. (Since they're locked, they cannot perform any actions. Hence no desysop from me.)

Goodnight, — regards, Revi 17:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that I’ve notified ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And noting that we're aware Worm^TT(talk) 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Worm That Turned: Do y'all want us to go ahead and desysop or is the global lock sufficient for now? 28bytes (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The account cannot do anything with the global lock in place, so we can wait for the procedures. –xeno^talk 17:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Global lock is sufficient at the moment as he cannot do anything more - just waiting on other arbs to reply regarding anything else. Worm^TT(talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good; just wanted to confirm. Thanks both. 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also an ANI thread. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can a globally locked account still see deleted revisions on projects where it has admin access? WJBscribe (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts that are globally locked are prevented from even logging in, so they can not access anything. See meta:Global locks for more information. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AntiCompositeNumber is correct. Since they cannot log in (either using Web or via API) nothing can be done with the account. That's why I just locked the account, not desysop'ing. — regards, Revi 14:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree that in that case, desysopping is not urgently required. WJBscribe (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would a bureaucrat please desysop

Under

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal_to_tighten_administrator_inactivity_procedure discussing potential changes to the policy on administrator inactivity. I am posting a notice here as it would affect bureaucrats and people watching this board likely would be interested. All are invited to participate in the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Garzo (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)}

Another compromised account

I just locked Garzo after the account vandalized the main page. Likely compromised as well, noting here for information. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom aware. Worm^TT(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please can a bureaucrat desysop under level 1 procedures. I'll post the rest in a moment Worm^TT(talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done per

WP:LEVEL1 at Special:PermaLink/870290300#Level_1_desysop_of_Garzo). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello bureaucrats, just noting that Ajraddatz has locked meta:Special:CentralAuth/Garzo as a compromised account. I have run a check locally, and it does appear to be compromised (different continents). I have notified ArbCom, but also posting here. As it is locked, it can't edit currently. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will wait for an ArbCom LEVEL1 request. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The request is already above.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1 desysop of Garzo

Under

Worm^TT(talk) 20:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Garzo

• Randykitty (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 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]