Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 6 December 2018 (Revolving bugbear). 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 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 11:47:12 on April 27, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Level 1 desysop of Orangemike

    Bureaucrat activity on this is now complete, welcome back to service Orangemike. — xaosflux Talk 22:36, 4 December 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.

    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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · 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]

    Just to flag here, I just hard-reset Mike's password. The account is unlocked and no longer compromised. Pinging Orangemike so he can confirm here when he logs back in. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    confirming. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have my admin bit, etc. been restored? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet... @Worm That Turned, BU Rob13, and JSutherland (WMF): OK for us to flip the bit? 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Arbitration Committee for restoration of access, it is up to them to determine that you are in compliance with project policies for account security and request your access be restored. This is normally a swift process and once they approve there will be no delay here. — xaosflux Talk 02:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    ^ This course of action makes sense to me. Up to you all, naturally, though I'd wait for him to actually get into his account before reapplying rights. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Edit: I am apparently blind. Sorry! :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We are currently discussing. Please hold until we pass a motion. ~ Rob13Talk 03:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Return of user rights

    The Arbitration Committee has verified

    2 factor authentication
    on his account.

    Supporting: Euryalus, Opabinia regalis, RickinBaltimore, BU Rob13, Newyorkbrad, Mkdw, KrakatoaKatie

    For the Arbitration Committee,

    Katietalk 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of administrative rights for Orangemike
     Done per Special:PermaLink/872000055#Return_of_administrative_rights_for_Orangemike. — xaosflux Talk 17:54, 4 December 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.

    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]
     Done — xaosflux Talk 13:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be duplication in Wikipedia:Inactive administrators .They appear to have been emailed again on Dec 1st also listed again in January 2019.Hence removed the above 6 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will follow up with the bot op at Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators/2019. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I regularly look these over when posted, just out of curiousity as to how the five-year clause is functioning, and I see soemthing potentially concerning here with Ocee. A look at their logs and contribs shows that really, they went inactive as an admin in 2012, and as an editor in 2016. But they came back in 2017 and made the one edit necessary to keep their tools, and at the same time made one logged action: granting themselves every possible userright they could for no apparent reason.

    I'm not suggesting there is any need for any action at this time and it's entirely possible this will never come up, but I wanted to go on record here that while they are technically not within the bounds of the five-year clause the one logged action they took in the last six years seems ridiculous and arbitrary and did nothing of benefit to anyone, including themselves since they have not made a single edit or other action since. I belive the community would object to this user getting their tools back just for the asking should they ask within the window provided.

    talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The question is whether they performed the action or not, not how arbitrary they are. I think ten edits or logs to stay an administrator can also be arbitrary. If you change the line to twenty-five edits or logs a year and twenty of them are user space, is that good enough? This is where it blurs the lines between whether we keep a bright line of activity or whether we are going to be reviewing their actions. — Moe Epsilon 21:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, technically, by the letter fo the rule, this does count as a logged action, and generally we don't have any cause to question the legitimacy of it, but in this case it's different as it seems they knew they were done, adding these userights was the absolute last thing they did on Wikipedia, and it wound up creating work for others as it they cleaned up all the redundant or otherwise useless userrights. There is no reason, ever, that anyone should be self-granting that many userrights at the same time.
    talk) 02:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think it's the 'notice' requirement that ends up triggering most of this, you can see it in the inactive reports every month, we send out notices, a portion of those notified make an edit or log, then go away. But that's the rules and this isn't the forum to fix that. Please feel free to follow up at
    WT:ADMIN if you want to change the inactivity policy. — xaosflux Talk 02:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There's a current proposal at
    talk) 02:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I do agree the excess user rights were mostly unnecessary, for a couple reasons. In the same vein though, I think the letter of the rule would also mean they are re-sysopped if they return within the next two years assuming there doesn't appear to be any other concerns. Bureaucrats are more bound by consensus (like RFA) and policy rather than making judgment calls. Xaosflux is correct in that it comes mostly with the notifications of inactivity. The fault for this lies at the policy that created the token edit/log loophole, not at those who use it. The way it is designed right now, though, would probably result in resysop. — Moe Epsilon 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • While yes, the letter of the rules says Ocee can be resysopped on request, Beeblebrox is right - making one edit and one logged action only to keep one's adminship while doing absolutely nothing to actually help with the admin workload is gaming the system. Admin tools should be for those who genuinely use them, and nobody else. And no, this is not the place to fix them, but our admin activity rules are not fit for purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We puzzlingly do not apply
      WP:GAME to all !rules on Wikipedia. Why is that? :) --Izno (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Izno: in these cases the policy's intent could mean two things, and GAME would only apply to one. On the one hand it could be "are you still using this mop, if not thanks for your service we'll put it away" (this can be GAME'd) - but on the other it can simply be "are you still alive and have your keyring?" in which case the token action says they are. — xaosflux Talk 16:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to be clear that I am certainly not blaming the 'crats in any way for this situation and om not proposing any policy change be made her at BN. Basically I'm "pre-objecting" in the event that they do return and ask for resysop. Whether that carries any weight or not I thought this needed pointing out, and can be dug back up for discussion during the usual "24 hour hold" if and when then do ask to be reinstated.
      talk) 21:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    I've seen obvious gaming before, like replying to the talk page message saying "I guess I better make an edit then" and going away again, but I've never seen something like this before. I'm not arguing (in this discussion anyway) that we tighten the standards but rather that in the case of something like this, where there is a reasonable argument that their one logged action constitutes not only gaming but abuse of admin tools that we basically don't count it. 'Crats are not really empowered to make that decision on their own, which is why I raised it. It doesn't need a formal rule becuause it's exceedingly rare and in fact I can't recall a case like this, ever. Even more puzzling is that the one action is from before the five-year clause was even proposed, so what the hell he thought he was doing and why is obscure at best.
    talk) 22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That's a fair point in a general discussion about activity requirements, but I don't think it is particualrly relevant in this case, where the admins one logged action in the last six years was entirely inappropriate and made needless busywork for their felllow admins to clean it up.
    talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    ALso, while editors are welcome to come back, someone who's only made 150 edits in the last twelve years shouldn't be coming straight back as an admin. The rules and culture of today's Wikipedia bear little relation to the Wikipedia of Wild West days (I found it a severe culture shock coming back, and I wasn't gone anywhere near as long); I don't consider it remotely unreasonable to ask someone coming back after that long away to demonstrate that the community still trusts them. ‑ 
    Iridescent 23:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There is, however, just a 24 hour wait for someone desysopped for not making the "gaming" edit. I agree that it shouldn't be a big deal, but part of not being a big deal is having a smooth transition not only from on to off but from off to on. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard cases make bad law The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Iridescent 21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    :nod: I don't think the 'crats are ever compelled to act. To refrain from performing an action does not require invocation of IAR. I would hope (and expect) that users that have been away for a while would be thoughtful about how they re-engage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    another inactivity issue

    I have a question, and depending on the answer possibly several more questions.

    When an admin receives a notice that they are going to be suspended for inactivity, the notice says they will be suspended if they do not return to activity within one month. I have always taken this to mean making an edit or other logged action on-wiki. Is there any cicrcumstance in which some other form of activity would be considered sufficient, as in an email to a 'crat or other off-wiki contact?

    talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    An exception would be made if they're editing with an alternate account (e.g.
    WP:USEIGHT) but I don't believe that applies to the case you're referring to. I would think that if they emailed it would need to be noted on-wiki someplace by whomever they emailed, otherwise the inactivity procedures should automatically kick in. We no longer have a 'crat mailing list. 28bytes (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Right. And since you do know who I'm talking about, I can't tell why they are still an admin. They got the notice last year and did nothing that I can see for the next 6 months. I guess we might as well make it clear that the subject of discussion here is
    talk) 22:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Wait, no I missed something, they also deleted something in their userspace just before they would've been desysopped. Blatant gaming but not a 'crat issue, never mind.
    talk) 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yea, they clearly have a logged action this year - I would not revoke them. I think its a bad standard personally, but that's just opinion. — xaosflux Talk 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of those without access to admin x-ray specs, they deleted a blank page in their userspace. ‑ 
    Iridescent 22:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    (edit conflict) Some notes: As the person who normally pulls these, I'd pretty much still pull if there were no edits or logged actions, I think the "alt account" thing is just wrong but I'm in the minority there. Some people argue that even an oversighted action or log should suffice, though I'd make someone from OS come defend them. I don't think I'd want to count "edit blocked" "actions" either (like a denied filter hit). This protected for life thing is what makes adminship more of a BIGDEAL than it should be. — xaosflux Talk 22:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That last point is a good thing to consider re: what to count for any proposed increase in activity standards, in particular how that proposal would be written. An attempted action that was blocked by a filter is clearly a sign the account shows at a mere modicum of activity, but is clearly neither the letter nor spirit of the policy put into place. The RfC was written specifically enough to not just be "inactivity,", but it's something to consider for a any future discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Xaosflux makes a good point here; it would probably be useful to have a widely advertised discussion about whether the "one edit" requirement is intended by the community to simply solicit a "yep, still alive" message or a genuine indication that the inactive admin intends to return to active editing and adminning in a reasonably short period of time. It's only gaming if the community expects the latter. 28bytes (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the third time they've almost been desyopped for inactivity, I don't think this is what the community expected when crafting the policy, which s a little too AGF-y in my opinion, but it was probably necessary to include all these loopholes just to have sucha policy in the first place. The latest discussion at
    talk) 23:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I left a message on Revolving Bugbear's talk page, and emailed them. I think discussion is the best first step in these cases. UninvitedCompany 23:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am increasingly of the opinion that the notifications are a major flaw in this policy. It's been around for seven yers now, if you're aren't aware of the requirements by now then you probably shouldn't be an admin anyway.

    talk) 23:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Why? What do we accomplish by trying to surprise people? UninvitedCompany 23:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of points, for what it's worth.

    For a long time I held open in my mind the idea that I might return to Wikipedia. It was very much a thing I wanted to hold on to, because even though my life changed and I lost interest in admin'ing on a regular basis, it was a thing I had previously taken great joy in. But, ironically, every time this conversation comes up (and I do monitor it when I notice it), and every time I get one of these notices, it makes me want to come back less. Because there is an extent to which this bureaucracy is self-perpetuating and all of these edits spent discussing me could be better spent improving the encyclopedia, sure, but beyond that it isn't about me but about general approaches to policy. The last round of userspace cleanup was for actually personal reasons, and not to hit the token edit, and the notice kind of reminded me to do it. But for as long as I've been on Wikipedia (which is a very, very long time in Wikipedia years), there has been a tension about whether Wikipedia wants to be a place guided by rules, or a place guided by principles.

    28bytes has a very important point about the point of the one edit rule. I doubt that issue will ever be resolved, but it's a thing worth thinking about. If Wikipedia wants to have systems for taking the tools away from people who aren't using them, I don't have a philosophical objection to that, but it raises an extremely important practical question about whether the bureaucracy creates more work than the marginal value of removing the tools from someone who might make mistakes when they come back after a long hiatus. At least in my time active on Wikipedia, that subject was never really a decided issue. But it seems to me that it's kind of a critical question in addressing why the one-edit rule exists, and what the purpose of desysopping someone for inactivity is. And, for that matter, what the purpose of a conversation like this is.

    I'm more than a bit saddened at the use of the phrase "a little too AGF-y". I'm hoping (dare I say assuming?) that you didn't quite mean that the way it read.

    In any case, I don't really have a vested interest in my adminship at this point, so if it makes all your lives easier, yes, sure, go ahead and remove it. Many thanks to Uninvited Company for his kind words on and off the encyclopedia, and I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time. But it seems that there is a much bigger conversation to be had here which, to be frank, is part of the reason I stopped editing so long ago.

    Best wishes to all, and maybe I'll see you around here again some day. - Revolving Bugbear 00:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I have removed your bit pursuant to your request. I would like to once again thank you for your service to the project during its particularly critical formative and growth years, for the consistent high quality of your article contributions, and your level-headed involvement in

    WP:RFA. If you change your mind at some future point and rejoin the project, it would be my privilege to sponser a future RFA when the time is right and if you wish it. Meanwhile, be well, and thanks again. UninvitedCompany 01:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Dealing with low-activity administrators through discussion

    Rather than set ever-higher minimum activity standards, I believe we should think critically about what we are trying to accomplish with desysops for inactivity, and deal with this through discussion and consensus with the affected individuals rather than trying to come up with a mechnical means of deciding who gets to keep their bit. Let's start with the real-world reasons for the housekeeping of what we call "inactive" users, and with the problems posed by overdoing it:

    • Accounts of people who have left the project completely are particularly susceptible to compromise because the account owner is not present to meet evolving security standards (password uniquiness, 2fa) and is not here to notice a "silent compromise." (This was the main rationale for the original policy).
    • There is perhaps a greater likelihood of someone who no longer has strong ties to the project transfering their dormant admin account to another person, in return for money or other personal gain.
    • On the other hand, people returning to Wikipedia after a long absence may face unique barriers at WP:RFA, because friends come and go but enemies accumulate over time.

    Now, the problem of people making rash administrative actions because they're out of touch with the project has so far been a hypothetical one. Our more serious administrator conduct problems have involved some long-time contributors who have never really left, and some relatively newly minted admins where, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that adminship was never really right for them. I would challenge anyone who believes returning admins are a problem to identify a case that is an example of this.

    I really do believe that the oddball corner cases used as examples are outliers. I believe that the best way to handle them is for someone to contact the individual affected, just as I have done with Revolving Bugbear, and encourage them to re-engage or resign as they see fit. Ideally the person doing the asking would be someone who they interacted with in the past. The best outcome would be to get people to rethink the role of Wikipedia in their lives -- and the difference that they could make here -- and return. The message left should reflect that. Now, if we do that, and we look back a year later and see that they haven't resigned, and haven't re-engaged meaningfully, and still won't resign when asked, we can address it. I will be surprised if it happens.

    UninvitedCompany 23:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I will add that if anyone is keeping a list of admins who have been marginally attached for a very long time but who are gaming the system, I'll volunteer to contact the ones I know. UninvitedCompany 23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @UninvitedCompany: Below is a list of admins whose last 20 edits go back to 2012. I am not accusing any of them of gaming the system, or indeed of doing anything wrong at all, just noting that they are not very active at the moment, if you want to reach out and engage with them. 28bytes (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is a list of admins whose last 100 edits go back to 2009. As above, there's no suggestion that they're doing anything wrong; I'm just providing a list of folks relevant to the discussion you can follow up with if you wish. 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=872230620"