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, 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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

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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 02:57:54 on November 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Epbr123

As an FYI to other crats, I've desysoped Epbr123 per 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 some of the issues. Maxim_(talk) 02:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. :-/ Maxim_(talk) 03:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the removal of the unblockself permission back in 2018 (see 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 So Why 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Peanut gallery comment) 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 – somehow, I suspect the community would not be receptive to the Committee making policy behind closed doors. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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). Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: to answer your question directly, no. The committee is not empowered to alter policy on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that this was a reasonable way to respond to a suspected compromise. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily resigning my administrative permissions

Sanchom (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

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. Sancho 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done with thanks for your prior service. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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! ›mysid (☎✎) 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]