This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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.
I requested desysop a month ago due to harassment concerns. Since then, something has changed in my personal situation that lessens those concerns. Some members of the Arbitration Committee are aware of the full situation, but I do not plan to expand further on what happened on-wiki. In any event, I wish to return to actively using the mop to improve the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we still need the mailing list? It was arguably useful for processing privacy-related rename requests. These are now sent to the global renamer mailing list. All we now seem to be getting is spam and complaints about admins, to which replies are sent directing people to the correct noticeboard. All of our business can - and should - be discussed on wiki, so I propose that we now close the list. WJBscribe(talk)14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only usecase I can think of is someone wanting to disclose a privacy-sensitive issue about an RfA candidate. This is rather rare. –xenotalk14:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, unless there is a cost associated with it, I'd rather have it even if unused than not have it and one day find out a use we'd have needed it for. Plus, we never know in the future what else it may be needed for. It can still be useful to discuss RfX closures (even if not currently used for it, as I understand). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the issue is just a lot of emails being sent to y'all through the mailing list that shouldn't go there? Instead of getting rid of it, perhaps it should be converted to a members-only list with messages from outside the list of bureaucrats and functionaries (since they may have good cause to email) requiring approval by someone in charge of the list? That way you at least cut down on the spam reaching every bureaucrat's inbox. ~ Rob13Talk21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a broader issue. FWIW, I have long been an opponent of mailing lists, and would prefer we didn't use them unless absolutely necessary. My main reasons being:
Transparency. They create a temptation for people to have private conversations that should be had here (e.g. RfX closes as Salvidrim! mentions). This temptation is magnified where decisions are likely to be controversial, which is exactly when I think they benefit from more outside scrutiny; and
Security. The main justification for these lists is private information, but they are extremely insecure. Messages get sent to every subscriber on the list, so the failure point is the weakest/pwned password of any of the list subscribers. Plus the list archives are available to future subscribers of the list, so the sender is trusting their information to unknown people who may be given access to the list in the future.
I should flag that I have always opposed this mailing list, which I wish had not been created. I had hoped that, now we no longer handle renames, we might be able to do away with it. WJBscribe(talk)23:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero opinion on this, but I do have a question. People who want a rename sometimes email arbcom or arbs thinking we can do it/are the right place for it. Awhile back I tried to fix some of the on-wiki documentation about this, and removed a suggestion on one of the relevant pages (I forget where) to email the crats. A crat suggested I leave it in, because many local crats are also renamers and the list is smaller than the global renamer list, so a sensitive request would go to fewer people and they'd all be familiar with the enwiki context. Is the crat list no longer receiving, or handling, these requests? Is there an enwiki-based-renamer list? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no enwiki-based-renamer list, just a global one. We do very occasionally receive emails in related to renames, and crats who are also global renamers will action such requests if appropriate. As far as I can tell, the bureaucrat mailing list has only received 3 rename-related requests since May 2016: on 1 December 2016, 7 October 2016, and 4 June 2016. My personal opinion is that the best way to get an enwiki global renamer you trust to carry out a sensitive rename is just to email them personally, bypassing the risk of mailing lists. WJBscribe(talk)00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the vanish requests these days come to the steward OTRS queue rather than the global renamers list (and I guess this one). Agreed that personally contacting a renamer that you trust is the best way for sensitive requests. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally never been a fan of having global renamers (or bureaucrats) handle right to vanish requests or other privacy-related renames. The role of the bureaucrat dates from well before Wikimedia's policies on handling private information (think CU/OS) and even today we don't generally factor "handling of sensitive information" into global renamer nominations. For what it's worth, the list is archived indefinitely and is much less secure (and even crats who are removed for cause still retain access to the emails that they received). The best option is contacting the stewards OTRS queue and asking them to handle the request. --Rschen775401:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds like that's best. Though I will say that, before I got involved in (for lack of a better word) wikipolitics, I would not have specifically trusted or even really known any stewards or global renamers. So the suggestion to personally contact someone would probably have resulted in a random pick, or whoever's first on the list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that renames are handled globally, I have no objection to shutting down the mailing list. It arguably served a purpose that no longer exists. MBisanztalk03:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have no problem with closing the bureaucrats' mailing list, either; of the work we have to do, all of it can be discussed on-wiki. Acalamari12:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Desysop request
I stopped the automatic desysopping by commenting on my talk page. But while I'm alive and well (and the account isn't taken over by a wrongdoer, which would be easy to prove using personal contacts at de.wikipedia), I realize that my long inactivity made me become out of touch with rules, customs, and technical details. So, please remove my sysop flag. --Pjacobi (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat note: Self request was here on BN, Special:Diff/762720157. — xaosflux Talk 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold Standard 24 hour hold for commentary opportunity. — xaosflux Talk 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Welcome back. WJBscribe (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
