Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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 all of them keep an eye on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request your administrator status to be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
USURP reqs 2
CHU reqs 13
RfAs 0
RfBs 0
Overdue RfBs 0
Overdue RfAs 0
BRFAs 4
Approved BRFAs 0
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

It is 09:00:22 on June 7, 2020, according to the server's time and date.
Global renamer and
Bureaucrat tasks:
Simple renames (talk)
Usurpations (talk)
Global rename queue
Assigning bot status (talk)
Requests for adminship (talk)
Inactive administrators (talk)
Inactive bureaucrats (talk)
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



IAdmin request (TonyBallioni)[edit]

TonyBallioni (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · 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)

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)
@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)
Sure. I’m still requesting this until such a time it’s deployed and works. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        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 (utc) 01:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as meeting all requirements. SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2020#June 2020[edit]

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

  1. Tim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  2. TheCoffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1
  3. John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
1Last logged action March 2013
xaosflux Talk 02:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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? UninvitedCompany 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

None here, those are just references. — xaosflux Talk 02:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
BE BOLD! bibliomaniac15 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. UninvitedCompany 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably the wrong place to ask this, but I can't find the original RFA for John despite quite a bit of searching. Am I missing something? QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
QuiteUnusual, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guinnog Maxim(talk) 11:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Resysop request (Malcolmxl5)[edit]

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)

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

 Done UninvitedCompany 00:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Resysop request (nakon)[edit]

Request was withdrawn, which means that no further discussion is necessary. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reconsidered and am withdrawing this request for now due to lack of activity. Thanks, Nakon 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Hello, I am requesting access to the sysop permissions I previously held. I previously requested a desysop in my earlier request, but considering that the request I made was due to career issues, which have now been resolved, I hope that I can retract my earlier statement and re-join the sysop group. I don't consider my resignation to have been "under a cloud". Thanks, Nakon 05:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

”Please remove my advanced permissions, and do not restore unless re-approved by the community.” Is that the statement that you’re retracting? Stephen 06:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am retracting that statement. Nakon 06:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
My sysop permissions have not been removed by the community or arbcom, so the revocation was self-imposed. I don't see any issues with temporary self-revocation. Nakon 06:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That statement holds no water in any policy-centric way anyway, so. --qedk (t c) 07:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It has been done earlier and it was held that there is no policy based reason to deny the request here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No one is saying that there is, Pharaoh. ——Serial # 08:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that you have been inactive for a year, and that this is your first edit on your return, I would personally, per WP:RESYSOP#7, prefer to have some evidence of you contributing to Wikipedia for a little while before restoring the admin flag. Also, just for reassurance, given that shortly before you resigned from Wikipedia, you commented that you had lost your phone [2], it would be useful if you could verify with someone you know on Wikipedia, that Nakon is the person in control of the account. SilkTork (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed; the only four edits made in 2020 have been to this thread, which is dubious at best. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • He's well within his rights to withdraw since he himself was the requester, discussion ongoing or not. The way you summarized that particular discussion also seems a bit overdramatic...reading your statement, you'd think he would have left in a cloud because people were questioning his competence, but the thread was just a simple request for followup on WP:RFP WP:PERM. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.