Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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	11
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 07:00:00 on June 12, 2025, according to the server's time and date.

Global renames are now active

Hi, fellow 'crats! I see from meta that the global rename tool has finally been released. Since SUL finalization isn't a thing yet, it'll only operate on usernames that aren't taken on any WMF wiki, but that still accounts for nearly all of the requests we fulfill on CHU/S. I propose that, in order to prevent any more fracturing of SULs, we start forwarding eligible simple rename requests on CHU/S to meta:SRUC, where the stewards will handle them with the new tool (despite the out-of-date instructions on that board). Since Legobot already checks for accounts on other wikis, both SUL and unattached, any request that's flagged as "no problems found" by Legobot should be eligible. Shutting down CHU/S entirely is also an option, of course, which will have the benefit of not making users file two requests, but keeping CHU/S open will give us a chance to filter out requests for usernames that aren't compliant with either the global rename requirements or enwiki policy (at least to some extent). (Perhaps we could file the meta request for them? Stewards, would that be cool?) Anyway, thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd very much like this. The finalisation will be a lot easier if we reduce the number of accounts that we need to globalise, and since RenameUser detaches local accounts from global ones when it's used, I'd like to see RenameUser used as little as is possible. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Any chance Legobot or another bot could automatically move or copy these requests to Meta for us? 28bytes (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably. But I don't really have time to write code to do that, so it would be great if another bot op could pick it up. Legoktm (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that it is the simplest rename requests that will need referring to meta, and these are mostly made by very new users. Simply saying we won't do it here and asking them to post to another board on another project (before a user is likely to realise that there is more than one project) would be off-putting. Ideally we would want a bot to:

1. Identify that the request is suitable to a global rename.
2. Make a suitable request on meta, linking to the one on enwiki.
3. Let the user know that the request is being processed (maybe link to meta, although I do wonder if that is confusing).
4. Mark the request as {{done}} after it has been actioned on meta.

Do others agree? Is this achievable, or will we need human users to do some of these steps? WJBscribe (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The most important thing is to quickly ascertain whether or not a request is suitable to a global rename, because a fair amount will not be. Sending a new user on a multiple-step paper chase can be off-putting to the new user. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Global username policy

Has a global username policy been hammered out yet? –xeno^talk 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, no. But stewards will be reluctant to rename accounts to anything obviously inappropriate, or promotional. --Rschen7754 10:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is any way to make a functional global username policy - it would be a royal pain to try and implement and nobody would be happy. Many username policy directly conflict with each-other, and I doubt that people would be convinced that theirs is inferior. What we can do is add to the global renaming policy usernames to avoid depending on the most active wikis of the people requesting renames. For example, if someone requests a global rename who is active mainly on eswiki, we would do our best to adhere to eswiki account naming policies. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • If someone has a global username that infringes a local policy, it will presumably be blocked if they try to edit with it on that project. The user will then have a choice of being globally renamed to something acceptable on all projects, or to have a different login for the project that doesn't accept the global name. On that basis, there is less danger of not having a global username policy acceptable to all wikis. I presume however that there are some names a steward will not rename to - e.g. obviously offensive, racist, sexist etc - in which case there will inevitably have to be some sort of basic global rename policy. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed on all this. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree, the main issue is when something is not offensive if one language, but is in another. But if the user requesting the rename is contributing significantly to more than one project then they only have themselves to blame if they get blocked for picking a name that is offensive in one of the languages. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)