Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-move-indef}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 46
|counter = 49
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 14: Line 13:
__TOC__
__TOC__


== "Me getting attacked by a bunch of users" etc. ==
== Epbr123 ==


Has anyone passed this boring disruption on to the WMF? Is there any point in it? Before the proxying there were IPs and of course CU on the accounts has real information--I don't know if the lawyers and sleuths at the Foundation act on those things. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
As an FYI to other crats, I've desysoped Epbr123 per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Epbr123|this announcement]]. For what it's worth, I try to avoid using multiple hats like so, but I've not yet found a steward to lock the account so this solves [[WP:BEANS|some of the issues]]. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 02:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
:See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#So_what_are_we_doing_about_that_IP]]. I have taken no action here other than blocking some proxies. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:The account is locked now. For what it's worth, the "not yet found a steward" was more of a Maxim issue than a steward issue. :-/ '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 03:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing how this is a bureaucrat specific issue; is there something special that is needed from this team? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Well, that was interesting. Kudos on the reaction time, which was impressive. Pretty sure WP:IAR applies to tool use in cases like this. In fact, that is kind of the purpose of IAR. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
::@[[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]] I think Drmies is asking if the issue can be raised to the WMF. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
: IMO it should be permissible to for any crat to unilaterally desysop an account they believe to be compromised, so long as they immediately notify ArbCom afterwards. No need to wait. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 20:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
::With the removal of the {{code|unblockself}} permission back in 2018 (see {{phab|T150826}}), there shouldn't really be any need for that. The account can be blocked by any admin (even if the compromised account managed to block other admins since they can always block the one who blocked them) and ArbCom can then decide under [[WP:LEVEL1]] which works quite fast anyways (the whole Epbr123 thing happened within a couple of hours while it was night here).Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
:::The checkuser team (already mentioned) is under the auspices of arbcom, who has recurring meetings with WMF resources; the bureaucrat team has no such thing. So I'd suggest having the CU's escalate to arbcom if they need WMF support. [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] posted here because the vandalism has [[Special:Diff/1238041383|spread to this board]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 07:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::With the nature of Wikipedia's permissions, and probably the exact issues that Maxim mentions above, I believe it will always be a good idea to remove sysop from a blocked compromised admin as soon as possible. I remember confirming this the last time I was blocked. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
:I believe that at this point literally every single administrator and functionary has been, forcibly, made aware of this person's ridiculous and ignorant complaint dozens of times, owing to them spending several months making it thousands of times across every conceivable attack surface and every project on which it's possible for them to edit. There are only a couple ways for this to resolve: either they realize that nobody cares and it will never result in their unblock and they give up (extremely unlikely since they've already been told this hundreds of times), they get bored and stop, or we just figure out enough rangeblocks and edit filters that they have to spend two days figuring out a loophole to post their absurd thing and get reverted and blocked within 15 seconds. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 08:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::While this looks to be a somewhat random occurrence where they didn't even try to use the admin toolset, I tend to agree that an immediate desysop is the right move. Even while blocked they can still do things like view deleted material, and only users who have passed an RFA or equivalent process are permitted to do that. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Beeblebrox}} Could ArbCom "give" this right to crats after a private discussion/vote? If we have an RFC, then someone's going to say "what problem is this trying to solve?", at which point people will chime in, on a highly-attended page, with all the things blocked admins can do. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:Xaosflux]], I posted here because you guys are the highest of the highest and the best of the best, and I was hoping for...well I don't know. CU is really useless anyway; the CU data for the original account are clear and "real", but all these recent ones, it's just proxies. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the note, the volunteer teams that will get most attention from WMF resources are Arbcom and the stewards. Our stewards team will block open proxies that are brought to our attention - even if they are 'only disrupting enwiki', and can work with Trust and Safety if there is an overwhelming attack. We do not aggressively block all peer-to-peer proxies, as they are often single nodes on dynamic addresses. There used to be an adminbot here that would block proxies locally, but it stopped doing so back in March (see also [[Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ST47ProxyBot]]). If there is still community support for such, another admin could spin up a replacement if the original operator no longer wants to do this. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{peanut}} If you're referring to giving bureaucrats the permission to desysop administrators without having to wait for a Committee motion or having to rely on IAR, that would be a major change in policy{{snd}}somehow, I suspect the community would not be receptive to the Committee making policy behind closed doors. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, but ''only'' in the case of compromised accounts. And obviously, ArbCom would always be able to overrule the crat and restore permissions, after the fact. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would upset people, but perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::::This would only apply in cases where a 'crat was aware there was an issue before the earlier of 3 arbs (see [[WP:LEVEL1]]) or a steward (who are explicitly permitted to use their tools in an emergency situation - see [[WP:GRP#Stewards]]), so the need is hardly urgent. I can see the benefit in explicitly allowing a crat to act on their own initiative in cases like this, and also to explicitly allow an arbitrator who is also a crat to wear both hats, however I don't see any reason why this couldn't or shouldn't be a community-led change.
::::::::FWIW, a quick search of the archives of this page suggests we average about 1 emergency desysop per year, with 1 each in 2018 and 2019, none in 2020, and 2 in 2021 (February and November). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I kept some notes from the burst of compromised accounts in 2018 and 2019 and know of three admin accounts that were desysopped as compromised in 2019. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Suffusion of Yellow}} to answer your question directly, no. The committee is not empowered to alter policy on it's own. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
*Block and process is generally OK. I think we have vary [[WP:IAR]] removed in a blatant takeover attempt at least once, but any 'crat would do so at their own risk. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
*FWIW, I agree that this was a reasonable way to respond to a suspected compromise. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

== Voluntarily resigning my administrative permissions ==
:{{rfplinks|Sanchom}}
Hello, I haven't been doing much administrative work. As suggested by the message left by [[User:JJMC89 bot]], I would like to voluntarily resign my administrative permissions. [[User_talk:Sanchom|Sancho]] 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}} with thanks for your prior service. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

== Resigning admin permissions ==

Hi, I haven't been doing admin work any more. I'd like to voluntarily give up my administrator flag. Happy to have contributed to the project! ›[[User:mysid|<font color="#ff1ee7">mys</font><font color="#a21eff">id</font>]] ([[User talk:Mysid|☎]][[User:Mysid/guestbook|✎]]) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#December 2021]] ==

The following [[Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2021#December 2021|inactive]] administrators are being desysoped due to [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators|inactivity]]. Thank you for your service.

#{{admin|Ryan Norton}}
#:<small>Last admin action: July 2010</small>
#{{admin|Kateshortforbob}}
#:<small>Last admin action: December 2018</small>
#{{admin|Wrp103}}
#:<small>Last admin action: July 2008</small>
#{{admin|Amalthea}}
#:<small>Last admin action: December 2019</small>
:— [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:04, 2 August 2024

    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 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 12
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 15:47:46 on August 5, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    "Me getting attacked by a bunch of users" etc.

    Has anyone passed this boring disruption on to the WMF? Is there any point in it? Before the proxying there were IPs and of course CU on the accounts has real information--I don't know if the lawyers and sleuths at the Foundation act on those things. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#So_what_are_we_doing_about_that_IP. I have taken no action here other than blocking some proxies. --Yamla (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how this is a bureaucrat specific issue; is there something special that is needed from this team? — xaosflux Talk 23:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux I think Drmies is asking if the issue can be raised to the WMF. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkuser team (already mentioned) is under the auspices of arbcom, who has recurring meetings with WMF resources; the bureaucrat team has no such thing. So I'd suggest having the CU's escalate to arbcom if they need WMF support. — xaosflux Talk 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Drmies posted here because the vandalism has spread to this board. Graham87 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that at this point literally every single administrator and functionary has been, forcibly, made aware of this person's ridiculous and ignorant complaint dozens of times, owing to them spending several months making it thousands of times across every conceivable attack surface and every project on which it's possible for them to edit. There are only a couple ways for this to resolve: either they realize that nobody cares and it will never result in their unblock and they give up (extremely unlikely since they've already been told this hundreds of times), they get bored and stop, or we just figure out enough rangeblocks and edit filters that they have to spend two days figuring out a loophole to post their absurd thing and get reverted and blocked within 15 seconds. jp×g🗯️ 08:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Xaosflux, I posted here because you guys are the highest of the highest and the best of the best, and I was hoping for...well I don't know. CU is really useless anyway; the CU data for the original account are clear and "real", but all these recent ones, it's just proxies. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note, the volunteer teams that will get most attention from WMF resources are Arbcom and the stewards. Our stewards team will block open proxies that are brought to our attention - even if they are 'only disrupting enwiki', and can work with Trust and Safety if there is an overwhelming attack. We do not aggressively block all peer-to-peer proxies, as they are often single nodes on dynamic addresses. There used to be an adminbot here that would block proxies locally, but it stopped doing so back in March (see also Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#ST47ProxyBot). If there is still community support for such, another admin could spin up a replacement if the original operator no longer wants to do this. — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]