View source for Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}
{{pp-move-indef}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 46
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d 
}}</noinclude>
{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">

__TOC__

== Epbr123 ==

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)
: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)
: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)
: 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)
:::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)
::::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)
::::::{{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)

== 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)