Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 07:32:29 on July 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

User:NoSeptember/crat stats

In a fragmented conversation on our talk pages, Rlevse and I have been discussing how WJBScribe used to keep this up to date.

I'd be utterly hopeless. I did suggest TRM might be a good candidate, but of course he's away for some time still. I then noted that it needn't be a Crat - just someone competent - and suggested I post here as an "advert".

Majorly has volunteered. IMHO this isn't a big deal, but just in case, thought I'd run this here anyway, in case one/some of the Crats has an objection. For the record, I thank Majorly for his offer and would be prepared to accept it, so long as the same system is perpetuated - I think it's a good page currently - with plenty of opportunity for discussion before any changes are implemented. --Dweller (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK with me. But yes, discuss changes before making them please. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone should be able to update it. It's part of NoSeptember's project, which he specifically says anyone can update pages on. Majorly talk 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm...what in particular is so objectionable about Majorly updating the tables? bibliomaniac15 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if I came across in wrong tone - I have no objections to it, and so far, no-one else does either! --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine if he is volunteering for it. Thanks Maj. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My only comment, remains the one I posted to Dweller's page. I think this would be an excellent use of a BOT, if somebody were to write one that could update the appropriate fields. That being said, I don't care who else makes the changes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on Bot. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Color me "don't care who does it, but a bot would probably be best". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The table is a fairly big and complex one, and it may be fairly difficult to code a bot for that. Then again, I have seen magic. Majorly talk 20:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the bot wouldn't actually "edit" the table - it would just re-create it each month rather than parsing anything. I could do it pretty easily in C++, though that's probably not very useful for a bot. --B (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I could give it a go if someone wants me to.... Fritzpoll (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It does sound like an interesting task to try and code, given the variable like the BotStatus and UserRights log to overcome, even if it just spit out raw data and people make it look pretty on a table it would save valuable man-hours. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider it a challenge... I am an expert programmer with ACL (a highly specialized language for auditors) and love challenges. Somebody who loves bots should accept the gauntlet! ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot would be awesome. I tried to help with this once and it's very tedious. I have no objection to Majorly doing it. When I mentioned changes I meant major layout changes should be discussed first, that's all. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary: we gratefully accept Majorly's offer to update the page and we're all hopeful a bot might be able to undertake this task, if a developer can overcome the technical difficulties. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver down

The toolserver (useful eg for checking SUL usage of requested usernames) is down.

Does anyone have any info about likely time of resumed function? --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be up again tomorrow. Not entirely sure though. Majorly talk 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

River said that it should be up within an hour or two. Xclamation point 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

11.5 hours on from X!'s post, it's still not working for me. Is there a central noticeboard for it? --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

River said it would take longer than expected. Right now, bots on the toolserver can run again, but the webserver is still down. Xclamation point 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's back up, but s1 and s3 are unavailable. I just did a SUL report on myself to test it out, and the bulk of my accounts aren't being listed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Still not working. Is there a central noticeboard for it? --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an issue with yarrow. someone needs to go to the new data center to fix the issue, ETA is sometime next week. Canis Lupus 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone place a big fat notice on the three flavours of name change pages, drawing attention to this problem and how it means in many cases we can't help with name changes right now. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a sufficiently garish notice on all the CHU pages. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

@Canis: So now are we going to have a Neopolitan changing username page? Somehow, the SSP2 page seems reminiscent of Neopolitan... Xclamation point 08:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been using my own SUL report to test if the server is back up, and I just got a full report. Tearing down the banners now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cratstats template

Now that SoxBot is done its trial, and looks like its heading towards approval, the {{Cratstats}} template should probably go onto this page. I have put up a sample revision, to show what it would look like. What do people think of this? Xclamation point 16:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a pain, but again, if it doesn't tell the ones that need attention I'm not sure what benefit it has. For bots a numerical summary of the status column of Wikipedia:BAG/Status would probably be helpful (though it actually just removes the approved but not yet flagged ones from its list while here it would be better to highlight those) and if similar could be done for the CHU bits I think that's what people were asking for out of this bot. I think you could remove the RfA/RfB part either way since there's more information summarized in the SQLbot report that's already there. Talk to ST47 about getting the code to BAGbot if you think it would be helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I already have the code for BAGBot (I used to have a BRFA running for a replacement at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot IX), and I'll work on getting those implemented. I'll then run it through another short tria, to confirm it works. Xclamation point 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, sounds good. - Taxman ^Talk 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And as I pointed out before and it got ignored, it lists CHU and CHUU but not CHU/SUL. :-( — Rlevse • Talk • 19:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Rlevse, it wasn't ignored. :) It was noted in my things to fix about the bot. Xclamation point 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have added SUL requests, Overdue RfXs, and Approved (but not flagged) bots. Xclamation point 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, is there still a chance of listing only the CHU requests that need attention? For example the number of Usurp requests that are actionable, as in over 7 days old, and other CHU requests that aren't awaiting user response? Also I still think there's no need to repeat the RfA/RfB stuff, but whatever everybody else thinks. Finally, it's nice to have direct links for everything in the table to where they can be taken care of, so if Approved BRFA or something nearby could link directly to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved that would help. - Taxman ^Talk 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Any stylist changes can go into Template:Cratstats/Style. I thought I had it CHU requests needing attention already. The format of the CHUU page would also make the USURP row very difficult to say only the ones that need attention. Xclamation point 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for the template to be included now, even if it can be improved further. As it'll be transcluded, enhancement can continue at the template page and we'll benefit straight away. Even flawed, it's a useful additional tool. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Redux (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have added the template to the header. Xclamation point 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC on voting as a component of consensus

There is an ongoing Request for Comment at WT:Requested moves#Moving or renaming articles based on poll results. The aim of the RfC is to determine whether and to what extent a majority of editors can be seen to represent a consensus, in the context of page/article moves. Note that this is a policy and not a content issue/dispute. All considered opinions on the nature of consensus are welcome.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so all the bureaucrats know...

Enigmaman's RfA has been closed put on hold by Deskana due to some CU information (possibly the only non-skewed way of saying that).

I'd recommend reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. Though nothing has happened that is quite within our purview, it's still something that we may have to deal with ('crat chat, etc) if/when the RfA is started back up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's happened so fast that it took quite a long while to read. I would hate to see Checkuser data turn a second RFA into a great drama-fest. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in any dialogue that may need to happen when it comes time to close the RFA. Also, I've stayed away from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 because I'm not interested in contributing to another of Wikipedia's famous extemporaneous soap operas, but it might be useful to draw a few conclusions here so if a situation like this happens again we're better prepared. Here are three principles that seem to have gained acceptance in the discussion:

1. When User A finds something out about User B which he suspects would, if widely known, affect the outcome of User B's ongoing RFA, User A should communicate privately with User B about his discovery before announcing it publicly, giving B the option to announce it himself, explain it away, deny that it is relevant to him, or at least be prepared for the coming storm.
2. When User A is a bureaucrat, and he thinks his discovery may justify his interfering somehow in User B's ongoing RFA, he would be well advised to confer privately with another, or several other, bureaucrats to confirm his intuitions before doing anything about them.
3. When User A is both a bureaucrat and a checkuser, he would be well advised to participate in any given RFA in one or the other capacity, and neither mix nor alternate them within a single RFA. This is not so much to avoid some supposed conflict of interest as to make the situation less confusing for all the onlookers, whose opinions of User B are after all the point of contention here.

To these I would like to add:

4. Whatever else happens, we should avoid at all costs a situation in which multiple people know, or think they know, the "secret" information, and want to make sure that everybody else knows they know about it and have an opinion about it, without revealing what the information is. These situations produce an atmosphere of cloak-and-dagger secrecy which can only mystify the RFA procedure and escalate the argument about it. If no definite information can be revealed to the community, then members of the community cannot independently make up their minds about it -- which means it would be better off left entirely secret.

I'd be interested to hear whether the other bureaucrats (or anybody else, really) agree that these are four reasonable lessons to take from this incident. If so, then I hope we can keep them in mind when dealing with future RFAs -- though of course, as I'm always at pains to point out, things like this do not get written in a bureaucrat policy but become part of the tradition. — Dan | talk 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RE bullet point 1: there are 2 major caveats that rarely comes into play. In this case, we are dealing with information that 1) couldn't be conclusively tied to Enigma (just his IP) 2) was obtained through means others didn't have. If, while investigating somebody's background, I stumble accross evidence of vandalism, I don't need to email them. It is only if I obtain said information via a tool others don't have access too... and in this case, the allegation was pretty serious.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to see if there could be some sort of protocol made for these kinds of circumstances. bibliomaniac15 17:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was hoping to avoid with the last sentence of my previous comment. There are lots of ways in which bureaucrats are capable of screwing things up, all but a few of which we have so far managed to avoid completely; yet we have no written policy or protocol. When we do make mistakes, we learn from them, but we do not proclaim the fact by adding another two paragraphs to a detailed laundry list of things-not-to-do. There's no reason to break from a highly effective tradition just for this bit of newly-discovered wisdom. We get on fine without a rulebook. — Dan | talk 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, Dan. Insightful as usual. I also agree with the follow-up that we should not be codifying this case as a precedent. Use common sense. Andre (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All reasonable, particularly 4 - I made a similar comment on the RfA talkpage, with a bit more obvious irritation. I think, as I said there, that the participants were well intentioned. But it created an atmosphere that was not helpful to the situation. I'm not sure how point 4 can be implemented, though - its a facet of human nature, and we're unlikely to have much impact on that. The rest are good sense precautions for any future situations involving a 'crats. Avruch ^T 17:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA reopened. Obviously that shouldn't kill the discussion here, which goes well past this one RfA, but just thought I'd note it, on the off-hand chance that nobody bothered scrolling down two threads. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Usurping and new accountholders

Please see Wikipedia:Changing_username#Pschology101_.E2.86.92_Psychology101. Please will someone bring me up to speed as to why we impose this restriction? It seems daft to deny this request. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In general the rationale is it is because rename is privilege granted to established users. But in this case, it's a typo so I'd approve it. The bot cannot make human judgments. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-attributing anonymous edits

I have read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. I may have something to say about the substance of that discussion if/when the RFA reopens.

I write here to raise an ancillary issue that might have avoided much of the brouhaha with regard to the privacy policy. The RFA candidate had made edits while logged out. The bureaucrat wished to reveal the substance of those edits without revealing the IP address. Several workarounds were attempted, and in the end, the candidate revealed the IP address after the cat had escaped from the proverbial bag.

Generally, for user accounts, a bureaucrat can reattribute a group of edits by renaming the user associated with those edits. Thus, for example, if you were to rename "Crystal whacker" to "Nanotube noob", all of the edits made under "Crystal whacker" would now be attributed to "Nanotube noob", and "Crystal whacker" under that old name would cease to exist. Although IP addresses are not user accounts, I wonder if it would have been possible to re-attribute those edits by creating a user account "Enigmaman alt. account" for this specific purpose. If it's not possible now, maybe ask for it on bugzilla.

In this particular case, since Enigmaman signed his posts on talk pages, the IP address would have been visible in the contributions. Maybe in future cases this would not be a concern, so the functionality could yield some benefit. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done because the developers say so. See WP:REAT. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link and the humor. I didn't know how far back into Wikipedia history I was going... :) Crystal whacker (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your question more specifically, it is not possible to reattribute edits made by an IP address the same way it happens with edits associated to usernames. Mainly because when we rename users what happens is not exactly reattribution, but rather a simple reassignment of all logged actions by that account to a new username. But it is essentially still the same account. Reattribution is quite different, because it involves attributing edits from one account or IP to another, something that no one other than devs has ever had the power to do. And because IP addresses are not user accounts, the only way to shift edits logged under them is actual reattribution, which requires developer access to manipulate the servers directly. There is no reattribution tool made available to anyone, be it Bcrats, Stewards or even God, and the only option is a somewhat laborious, manual work. Back when Wikipedia was a lot smaller, we used to have a request page for reattribution requests made to the devs, but this has long been discontinued, and it will probably never return. The devs are way too busy with other issues, and are usually not available to spend large amounts of time reattributing edits made anonymously. Which is part of the reason why we always ask of people: please take a few seconds to register. It's easy and completely free. Redux (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Crat needed to re-open Enigma RFA

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2#Fire this back up again. As Enigma wants it to be re-opened, and Deskana had stated he acted hastily (while also swaying the entire process by saying he would "oppose" which is apparently out of bounds for an acting crat) can someone else please re-open this RFA? rootology (C)(T) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to open it back up. With the closing 'crat and candidate being fine, I can't see a reason that we (the 'crats) shouldn't... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Due to the RfA being placed "on hold" for roughly twenty hours, I've altered the closing date and time. This is not an extension of the RfA, merely an attempt at giving the process a full seven days to run. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. bibliomaniac15 17:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs unprotecting. Majorly talk 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tanthalas just did it. bibliomaniac15 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wha wha wha, nobody said anything about unprotecting it. ;)
Also, I've just gone thru and done everything I can to make this look like a regular RfA; I've shifted it around on the RFA listing, manually updated the bot listings (both time and order), and shifted the entire CU discussion to a subpage of the RfA's talk. I'm not trying to cover up what has happened, merely trying to bring a certain degree of normalcy that has been missing for the past twenty hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call guys. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver acting very strangely

The toolserver has been acting rather strangely lately. It's not picking up SULs, and sometimes neglects accounts in other wikis. bibliomaniac15 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

that might be because s1: 2d 7h 49m 34s lag; s2: current; s3: 1w 3d 6h 54m 33s and not updating; server status issues. Canis Lupus 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)