Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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. –xeno^talk 14:57, 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]

It is a boring mailing list, we did use it once recently for non-public information about a resysop candidate. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:54, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:51, 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. --Rschen7754 01:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 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. Acalamari 12:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been one of those behind its creation. It has no good purpose any more and on reflection WJB was possibly right even when it did have a purpose. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Awkward --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I am happy to abide by the wisdom of my fellow bureaucrats. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference ticket from creation, can be used as model if we need to delete: phab:T20006. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: If you are going to continually remove things from the archive you have to add a stop or the bot will just continually move it back. Also, don't just remove something from the archive without deleting it from the archive. That just leaves duplicates and makes the archives a giant mess. @'Crats, feel free to remove the DNAU tag when you are done with this conversation. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list

1. Keep for the limited purpose that information not suitable for on-wiki may be handled related to resysop satisfactions "that the account has not been compromised" or for certain messages from arbcom related to such. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Keep for the reasons presented by Xaosflux. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   @Nihonjoe: I think the "deletes" are gaining consensus here - and I'm considering closing this discussion in that favor (as I was the opposition don't think this is COI) - do you have any other specific objections? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   That's fine. I still think it's dumb to get rid of a potential tool just because it's not used as much anymore. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I think if we were to keep it, we should turn on moderation to stem the flow of all the spam. –xeno^talk 18:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm fine with that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. Keep, but enable moderation. There are some rather rare usecases, but it would be better to have around for such times. –xeno^talk 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Moderation would require one or more of us to actually work the moderation queue - are you a volunteer for this? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   My vision was that if someone was sending a message to the queue, they should notify us on the noticeboard. –xeno^talk 19:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I already do that. I get message almost every day and pretty much always tell the system to delete them (since they are almost always spam). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list

1. Per the transparency and security issues I outlined above. We don't need it. WJBscribe (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per WJBscribe --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per WJB. Honestly I completely forgot said list existed until now. Wizardman 23:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's pretty much useless now; it's filled with spam and I seriously doubt that any of us on the mailing list are in desperate need of more spam. And again, there's hardly anything - if there's anything at all - that can't be discussed on-wiki. Acalamari 17:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree it can be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Acalamari. Really late to this discussion, but since I was ping'd... bibliomaniac15 17:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. No strong opinion, but I unsubscribed a few years ago, I didn't find it useful and creates (unfounded) suspicions that bureaucrats are plotting something or other on there. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. In general, even though it's main purpose is now defunct, I'd be in favor of keeping the list, even if rarely used, for emergency situations. However, it has become such a spam magnet, that I tend to delete it automatically. The costs outweigh the benefits at this time, IMO. Should a serious use case arise in the future, it can be recreated as a moderated list. -- Avi (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Avi and others. If we ever truly need something like this again in the future, hopefully it can be implemented in such a way that the signal-to-noise ratio is not so abysmal. (Thanks to Dweller for the ping.) 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to persuasion but not at all convinced by the arguments in the keep list. I don't feel there's really a consensus here, despite xaos' valiant and unselfish comment. No consensus defaults to status quo, I think, but any objections to pinging the remaining active crats to see if they'll weigh in? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any harm in a ping to get more input. Tempted to argue that we shouldn't have lists unless there is a consensus to keep them, but that'd probably just making mischief ;)... WJBscribe (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those with March 2017 edits: 28bytes Addshore Andrevan Avraham Biblimaniac15 Cecropia Deskana EVula Kingturtle Maxim UninvitedCompany Warofdreams Xeno --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Bibliomaniac15 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this exercise proves that if you want to maximise the chances of passing WP:RFB, first get a username that starts with A. And definitely one in the first portion of the A-Z. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And be willing to go through the "death by 1000 cuts" process numerous times, having your very wikiness subject to excruciating review. Speaking for a friend . -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You could discuss this amongst yourselves on the mailing list... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That would exclude 6 Crats and be an abuse of the mailing list's purpose. And besides, it might make WJB's head explode. And that would be messy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ew. Yeah, OK, that's a good reason to do it here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, if you changed your username to User:Aardvark.Floquenbeam, you'd probably zoom through RfB. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  When you say 'exclude 6 crats', do you mean to tell me if the result was no consensus, you would continue to keep a mailing list around which isnt currently being used, which 6 crats cant use currently, based on the hypothetical rare case it might be? What are you going to do, ask those 6 crats to sign up to a mailing list that sees almost no use? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm. Yup. Except they've already been invited to sign up to it [in most cases a long time ago] and I wouldn't presume to irritate them by asking again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The mailing list isn't, and was never, "for us", it was for the community to be able to have a way to contact a large number of bureaucrats at the same time. I'd suggest that if we can't come to a consensus, we invite input from the wider community to see if they still think we should keep the list around. –xeno^talk 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that there's now over 70% of bureaucrats leaning in the straw poll to 'delete', I think we should still let the community weigh in before closing it one way or another. –xeno^talk 16:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly. It's not used for discussion, but rather to handle potentially-sensitive information in a private manner. Everyone who uses the mailing list is very careful to make sure only the private information is discussed there, and anything not private is brought to onwiki discussion. I'm fine with asking the wider community what they think. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a great idea and an excellent development. Watching with interest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we bring this discussion to a close? There is now a clear consensus among bureaucrats and I get the clear feeling that the community thinks we're wasting their time with this issue. WJBscribe (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. In future if we all need to convene on a private matter we could just create a large cc: group via traditional email or something. –xeno^talk 11:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well register my opinion. I don't feel right making a "keep" or "delete" !vote—I've never been subscribed to the list. The list doesn't seem useful to me, but at the same time I don't have a problem with other crats using it if it is useful to them. Maxim_(talk) 12:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the bureaucrats maintain the existing private mailing list for matters not suitable for on-wiki discussion? –xeno^talk 13:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section for discussion by the community. Please note, bureaucrats are not required to subscribe to the mailing list. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's deleted, and there is an rare need for a private, discreet crat-only contact, how would you direct someone to contact you instead of using the list? Rgrds. -64.85.216.137 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You could still use e-mail to specific bureaucrats. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added RFC tag and advertised to a few places [1]. –xeno^talk 13:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point, when there's already a bureaucrats mailing list? Why can't Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrats be used for this purpose? I can't imagine a problem with having such a list, but I can't understand why two mailing lists are needed. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have no idea what happens to any email sent to that user account. Can someone enlighten me? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same list, using Special:EmailUser/Bureaucrat just forwards the email to that list. Nyttend, the discussion is whether we should keep the list around at all (see above). I've clarified this in the RFC question. –xeno^talk 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of years ago, I requested emergency self-desysop due to a very awkward real-life situation (I feared becoming the subject of a repeat of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-08/News and notes, although not national-security related, and I needed to be able to say "I don't have the ability to delete these pages"), and I used Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats. I needed desysop fast, and the only real alternative was emailing all the bureaucrats individually. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could have emailed a bureaucrat who was actively editing (or several), which is what we used to do before the list was created in late 2009. That would have the advantage, IMO, of keeping the information more confidential - i.e. only in mailbox of a number of people in your control, rather than in the mailboxes of all bureaucrats and in the archives of a mailing list unknown people (admittedly, who pass RfB) may be granted access to in the future. WJBscribe (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's a sensible contribution. The only problem is that the existence of the list gives a false sense that we'll see/respond fast. Maybe I'm the only one, but I personally (regrettably) often neglect the list traffic, because it's clogged with spam on a daily basis. Most of the rest of the messages are from people who misunderstand what Crats do. Only once in a blue moon is it actual Crat stuff. When it has been Crat stuff, it's nearly always been things we could have discussed onwiki.

I'm on my work computer right now and missing my bookmarks - but there is a toolserver tool to list admins/crats that have very recently edited - may be useful to find someone on now. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found the tool link, added it the BN header above. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your situation, with the knowledge I have as a Crat, I'd do what I used to do before I became an admin and wanted some speedy mopping - I'd look for someone with tools who's editing and ask them.

Can any Crats remember and recount (in a generalised way!) the last time we had a real issue on the list that actually needed privacy? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last year there was a short discussion regarding validating a committed identity for a resysop. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the one I'm thinking of, am I right that it was mostly discussed onwiki? I have a lousy memory - was there much that we discussed on the list that didn't and couldn't have appeared here? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - and yes, most of it was here on-wiki (as it should be!). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it was on-wiki, but, IIRC, we were able to be more open about the actual identities being discussed, which included possible connection to a RL ID, on the list. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - mailing list should be handled with the same degree of competence and concern as is exercised over Arbcom's mailing list used for the same purpose. Anything more than this level of scrutiny, like perhaps: timely deletions of messages received, should not be imposed on the caretakers of this list unless it is also imposed against the arbcom list as well.--John Cline (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What kind of matters not suitable for on-wiki discussion are we talking about - sockpuppetry during an RfA or something along the same lines, perhaps? - and how frequently do they occur? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The one case last year dealt with restoring a sysop for someone whose on-wiki committed identity required them to divulge some real-life ID related to a personal non-wiki website. -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So rarely, I struggled to remember any. Xaos gives an example, just above, that ended up mostly being discussed onwiki anyway. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Gosh, you're responsible people, I assume, but more important, we have no need to micromanage in this way, and I don't want to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see much a reason why you guys can't e-mail each other normally for a one time a year-type situation and deprecate the mailing list. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really get the point of asking the community about this, since it doesn't really affect us. But if you're looking for help in pushing the needle past the "consensus to delete" mark, sure I'll help out. Delete mailing list as functionally useless. No objection to you reinstating the list without community permission if it ever becomes functionally useful. (Note that if it would give this vote more weight, I can make it with my 'crat sockpuppet account User:Aardvark Floquenbeam instead.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If an administrator needs to verify their identity using a committed identity for resysop, that information should be sent to the bureaucrat group as a whole, presumably. That alone justifies the mailing list. I could possibly see removing bureaucrats from the mailing list if they haven't actively participated in any bureaucrat activities in 12 months or so, but getting rid of it entirely? Removing it just doesn't accomplish anything, and there's a chance it will be useful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I get that 'crats aren't supposed ot make any bold moves and only use their powers when there is already a clear consensus, but c'mon guys. If your mailing list is unused and no longer desired, get rid of it. Most mailing lists for users with advanced permissions see multiple threads every week, so if there's one that's only used like once a year I think we can do without it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I see no important downside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• What Beeblebrox said. To be honest (and totally hypocritical ;) I think there are better uses of the community's time than a discussion among non-crats about whether or not the crats should have a mailing list. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the crats want a list? If so, keep it. Do they not want a list? Then delete it. I think it's folly to assume the removal of the list will magically and automatically result in discussions migrating here though. Ultimately not really an issue for the peanut gallery to decide. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Lists like this can be useful for private requests, but those can be directed to individual 'crats instead. Do whatever you as a group feel is best :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo the last three comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summary is that the Crats [largely] say "no thanks" and the community [largely] says "Meh". Any dissent? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are good to close as delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikipe-tan is a blatan hoax. I blanked it(shouldnt on second thought), but CSD wont work. can you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's April Fools' Day that's why. Not a hoax, a one day a year joke. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok  Request withdrawn . No offense intended --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Kostas20142 actually the rather amusing thing is, accusing the RfA nominator of creating hoaxes when they are actually an admin and bureaucrat :D that's the spirit we want here- no respect for titles or the baubles of officialdom! Happy Fools Day, all! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]