Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 4 December 2018 (→‎Return of user rights: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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
USURP reqs 3
CHU reqs 1
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 13
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 23:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 18:27:33 on December 6, 2019, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
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 47 48 49 50



Level 1 desysop of Orangemike

Orangemike (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (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)

Pursuant to the above, please remove the sysop flag. Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk 04:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
Doing...xaosflux Talk 04:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done by 28bytes already. — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Xaosflux, I hit the button before I saw your note. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
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)

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)

confirming. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Have my admin bit, etc. been restored? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
@Orangemike: welcome back. Please contact the 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)
^ 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)
We are currently discussing. Please hold until we pass a motion. ~ Rob13Talk 03:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Return of user rights

The Arbitration Committee has verified Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is back in control of their account via multiple methods. The committee therefore reinstates their administrative user right, which was previously removed by motion. The committee also urges him to enable 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)

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)

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)

Doing...xaosflux Talk 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 13:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
Thanks, will follow up with the bot op at Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators/2019. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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)
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
There's a current proposal at WP:VPP that would in fact eliminate the mandatory notifications. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • We puzzlingly do not apply WP:GAME to all !rules on Wikipedia. Why is that? :) --Izno (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    @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)
  • 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that you make a valid point insofar as there are some users who make isolated edits strictly to maintain a facade of activity without making a meaningful effort to re-engage with the community. The original 1-year inactivity policy was written specifically to allow us to remove people from the rolls who had lost interest in Wikipedia and had no intention of returning. In this regard it has been successful. The addition of the 3-year "lengthy inactivity provision" and the requirement for logged actions within 5 years were efforts to insist that administrators maintain some level of attachment to the project. They are mechanical and easily gamed, but at least they show an intent to stay engaged. If we were to tighten the requirements -- say, require 10 logged admin actions every six months -- inactive people who want to hold onto their adminship will simply be sure to meet the new requirements. Rather than tightening the activity requirements, I personally would rather see a policy that requires people to make a reasonable number of edits (50 or 100) within a month or two of asking for their bit back. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • 10 logged admin actions every six months (with the proviso that they can't be trivial like deleting pages in your own userspace or repeatedly deleting and undeleting the same file) might be nice because it would require something useful to the project. --B (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Friendly reminder that I like to drop in any such discussion: Not everyone considers adminship to be so important as you all seem to. People get busy with their lives and stop performing sysop actions here regularly, but might not want to close the door on coming back to contribute in the same way they did before. I don't see it as gaming for an inactive admin to make the mandatory one edit on their talk page after being notified, I see it as them saying "yes, I still exist, and I might come back someday". A good volunteer organization finds ways to re-engage people after they leave, not increase the barriers to them returning and resuming their past work. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 (utc) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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