Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
|
|
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worm That Turned | 171 | 1 | 2 | 99 | Open | 09:47, 18 November 2024 | 6 days | no | report |
 | It is 08:49:01 on November 12, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
New administrator inactivity requirements
Hello all. Please note that following the consensus established at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements, an additional minimum activity requirement for administrators has been introduced: 100 edits within 5 years. Enforcement on this will begin in January 2023. This does not specifically apply to bureaucrats, but perhaps it should. There are currently crat+admins that would have admin removed if this were effective today - but would still be crats. Thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to see it applied to crat user right too - but the, I proposed the requirement in the first place. There is clear community consensus on it this for admins, so I struggle to see why we wouldn't apply at least the same for crats. WormTT(talk) 14:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should adopt it as an additional requirement to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Inactive_bureaucrat_accounts as well. — xaosflux Talk 14:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is it even suitable for a crat to not be an admin? If not, then the requirements are implied by proxy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski being an admin is not a polioy requirement to be crat. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should but sadly I think it would take another RFC. I think whoever proposes new inactivity requirements should write bureaucrats into the initial proposal so we don't have these issues. --Rschen7754 18:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorta, the "administrator policy" is much firmer than the bureaucrat information page - so yes a discussion should be had, but I doubt it will be as attended for this matter. Wanted to drop this open for any feedback here first. — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think any RFC on the subject should solidify the obvious, that a Crat must be an admin. If you lose the admin bit, you automatically lose the Crat bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not 100% obvious, since User:28bytes was a crat for quite a while without being an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Xeno is another example.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then maybe giving up both bits should be obvious, and being able to restore the Crat bit using the same criteria as admin if they are given up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It would solve a lot of these problems and some WMF wikis do that. Though I think some RFCs here proposing that have failed. (Though I suppose one could try again, I don't think this inactivity RFC would have passed just a few years ago). --Rschen7754 00:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then maybe giving up both bits should be obvious, and being able to restore the Crat bit using the same criteria as admin if they are given up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Xeno is another example.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not 100% obvious, since User:28bytes was a crat for quite a while without being an admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think any RFC on the subject should solidify the obvious, that a Crat must be an admin. If you lose the admin bit, you automatically lose the Crat bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorta, the "administrator policy" is much firmer than the bureaucrat information page - so yes a discussion should be had, but I doubt it will be as attended for this matter. Wanted to drop this open for any feedback here first. — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it should but sadly I think it would take another RFC. I think whoever proposes new inactivity requirements should write bureaucrats into the initial proposal so we don't have these issues. --Rschen7754 18:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski being an admin is not a polioy requirement to be crat. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is it even suitable for a crat to not be an admin? If not, then the requirements are implied by proxy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Being a Crat is not the same as being an Admin, so I'm not seeing that a requirement that if a user gives up the Admin tools they should also give up the Crat tools is appropriate. However, yes, the activity requirements should be at least the same, if not greater, for Crats. We need a RfC for this - it doesn't need to be well attended as it's common sense and uncontroversial; all that's needed is a consensus, which I'm sure it will get. User talk:Worm That Turned, as you started this, it would be appropriate if you finished it off; would you set up the RfC? SilkTork (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it really will be uncontroversial I will note that Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes doesn't require formal RfCs to change policy, though I certainly understand why one is desired here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm a big advocate of being bold and moving forward, though on the question of removing Crat rights I think it would make sense to have a little more formality and community awareness than just a handful of us saying that we think it's a good idea. We could have the RfC on this page as a continuation of this discussion. I don't think that many people will get involved, but as long as it is advertised on Cent, then the community would have been alerted. If Worm hasn't started the RfC by tomorrow, then I'll set it up. SilkTork (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm rather away from my computer for the Easter weekend - happy to set on up when I get back, but also happy for you to go ahead and do one WormTT(talk) 08:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm a big advocate of being bold and moving forward, though on the question of removing Crat rights I think it would make sense to have a little more formality and community awareness than just a handful of us saying that we think it's a good idea. We could have the RfC on this page as a continuation of this discussion. I don't think that many people will get involved, but as long as it is advertised on Cent, then the community would have been alerted. If Worm hasn't started the RfC by tomorrow, then I'll set it up. SilkTork (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we have a list or count of the individuals affected? UninvitedCompany 00:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you sort this table by "100 edits go back to," it's everyone with that field in red. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of these users, the only one who is a Bureaucrat is Cecropia. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There aren't enough bureaucrats to care about a rule for bureaucrat inactivity. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Notifications
The RfC specified that all administrators be notified of the change which I'm happy to do via MMS. It also specifies proactive notice for people subject to the new requirement. Xaosflux are you able to incorporate that into the notification work you already do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: lets follow up at Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)/Request_for_comment_on_administrator_activity_requirements#Closing_-_anything_extra - because the closing didn't endorse everything that was discussed, only the threshold so far. We certainly will work it in to the bots though, lets just be very clear. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Desysop request (Kpjas)
Regrettably, I feel obliged to ask you for a voluntary desysop of my English Wikipedia account. I admit that for a quite a long time I have not been able to be stay active in this respect. I sincerely hope to be of use to the English Wikipedia community as my time allows. Kpjas (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done. If there are any perms you need (PGM, rollback, etc) let us know. Primefac (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)