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 5 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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 17:48:39 on November 28, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Int admin activity policy

I’ve started a discussion at wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Interface_admin_and_view_deleted_access about view access and the interface admin activity policy. Alerting here since this is where requests for access are made. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IAdmin request (TonyBallioni)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202989

TonyBallioni (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)}

Per this thread at VPP, there's a bug in the IAdmin implementation that doesn't let admins see deleted interface pages. There are a few sockmasters that are my "regular" cases where having access to deleted .js and .css userpages would be useful. I have zero interest in ever using the actual parts of the tool, but there seems to be consensus I have a valid need and its a fine use case even if there's no public evidence I'm using it. Anyway, I'm aware of the 48 hour hold and confirm I have 2FA enabled. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though this isn't a normal reason for needing this flag, with phab:T202989 outstanding and the requester being a trusted functionary I don't see any concerns with this. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: @Wugapodes: may be able to fix the patch, and I should be able to review and (if everything works fine and there aren't any issues) I'll merge it DannyS712 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I’m still requesting this until such a time it’s deployed and works. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard requirements are that users are "highly trusted, have at least a basic understanding of CSS and JS, are aware of the privacy expectations of Wikimedia wikis, and have a decent understanding of how to secure their accounts". The community have said that the user should be an admin. WMF have said that the user should have 2FA. With Tony's confirmation of 2FA all boxes are ticked, except I am unaware if Tony has "a basic understanding of CSS and JS". @TonyBallioni: - would you say you have at least a basic understanding of CSS and JS? As regards the 6 month rule - I don't see that 'Crats can change that as there was a RfC in which the consensus was that the right would be removed from users who don't use it for at least six months: [1]. Either Tony would have to re-request every 6 months (which is not too tedious, and would be promptly accepted without having to wait 48 hours), or the community holds a RfC to see if they are willing to amend the ruling for circumstances such as this. I would say that I would not rush to remove Tony's IAdmin right after 6 months, but I couldn't go against consensus and say that Tony would be explicitly allowed to ignore that rule. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a programmer, but I understand the basics involved and know enough to do basic fixes in people’s common.js if someone was asking for help. I also know enough to know I shouldn’t do more than that :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IADMIN says that interface admins who meet the inactivity criteria "should have the user right removed" but does not spell out a process for doing so. Perhaps we can automatically notify interface admins whose access is about to expire and ask them to confirm if they still need it? A simple reply should suffice, because we don't need people making dummy edits to satisfy the activity requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a bot run by JJMC89 that posts to WP:IANB when someone is going to be inactive, but unlike with inactive sysops there's no automatic notice, etc. It's a very rare process given how few there are; there have been ~six reports in the nearly two years of the group existing, three in the past year. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as meeting all requirements. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2020#June 2020

The following inactive administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

Tim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
TheCoffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ¹
John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

¹Last logged action March 2013

— xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the message text at Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#Boilerplates matches neither policy, {{Inactive_admin}}, nor the emails generated by the bot. Any objections if I update the project page to refer to the template? Uninvited Company 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None here, those are just references. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BE BOLD! bibliomaniac 1 5 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Uninvited Company 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resysop request (Malcolmxl5)

Malcolmxl5 (current rights · rights management · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) · block log)

Good morning, I would be grateful if you will resysop me. My desysop request of 14 April is here. Thank you, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues, standard 24 hour hold. Primefac (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Primefac. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Uninvited Company 00:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]