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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 04:23:52 on September 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Hello BN watchers, the transition period for "tech admin" access to edit site js/css has begun. Bureaucrats can manage access to the new group - but we need a community policy and process to follow (even if it is something like "At bureaucrats discretion" - which I really don't recommend). In about one month, enforcement of this will begin (that is existing admins will no longer be able to use this access). Overall guidance is that this access requires at least the same level of trust and competence that administrators have. Our community is mostly free to make its own policies and processes related to this. Some informal discussions suggest that most of our admins won't need this as they either do not have the desire or aptitude to make these type of edits. It is also up to us if we want to make being an admin a prerequisite., Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RFTA with 80% support would be my suggestion (higher than RfA because I personally feel that the ability to mess up the website as a whole is more sensitive than what will be remaining in the admin package.) Do we need to specify that local crats have the ability to remove it as well? I thought this was raised on meta, but I forget the answer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that's a blue-link already? Well, we should retarget it... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: we (crats) can also remove this, the community policy should also stipulate when this should occur, and if there are special provisions for "former" access holders. The general guidance is that some type of inactivity requirement also be required (if we require admin, it COULD be tied to admin access - or could be something else). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have started a discussion about the new technical administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Interface administrators Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Salvidrim!, I think the best step forward at this time is for people who are interested to work on the talk page there to get a proposal together and then put it to the community at an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of wary of having an RfA like process for this user right. I mean, what are we community members supposed to evaluate there? I'd rather see a process like the one used on WP:EFN for edit filter manager access, not something as heavy-weight as RfA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also said upfront that I viewed this as more of an EFM-like thing. Both EFMs and techadmins can basically break an entire wiki so it makes sense for both user-right requests to be reviewed by existing right holders and experienced in the chosen area. As long as both are gated behind "must already be admin" I don't see how a second RFA-like process is helpful. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treating like EFM makes sense to me, but we do need a consensus for adopting that approach. WJBscribe (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators is where we're hashing things out for now. I guess. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#August_2018 administrators are being desysoped due to inactivity. Thank you for your service.

1. Asterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. KF (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]