Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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

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	13
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 03:50:00 on April 26, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Voluntary Admin Removal \ WGFinley

I gained my bit in a much different time on WP and it appears the community has changed greatly during that time and I have lost touch with it. Therefore, I'm requesting that my access to admin tools be removed. --WGFinley (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done that for you WGF. Thank you for your time as an admin. Noting here, for the record, the discussion at ANI: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)

I have opened an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) to discuss establishing a community based desysop policy. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

proposed alternate request for de-bureaucratship / de-adminship / de-intadmin process

Thank you for the link TonyBallioni. It looks like the bureaucrat tasks being proposed are:

• confirming that a given request for desysop / de-bureaucrat / de-intadmin has been certified as prescribed;
• transcluding the certified request, should the discussed rightholder not do so as prescribed;
• (knock-on) tending to notice threads placed at BN upon initiating and transclusion of requests;
• (presumably) clerking on ongoing requests;
• closing expired requests; those with 60% in support of removal result in removal of affected privilege; removal of Sysop necessitates removal of bureaucrat* and intadmin;
• (where applicable) request bureaucrat removal at m:SRP in absence of local ability.

The surface for bureaucrat discretion seems minimal. Did I miss anything? –xeno^talk 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

xeno, I think you have it. There’s some discussion as to if there should be a discretionary range for removal, but unless there is a groundswell for that, it is not included in the current proposal. The roles for bureaucrats in this proposal are mainly ministerial. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Who determines whether the original noticeboard closures resulted in the necessary censure? –xeno^talk 17:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Notably, while the page title doesn't include it, this is also a de-bureaucrat process. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  How so? –xeno^talk 04:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Xeno: the last line of the proposed policy addition (which I think has other problem unrealted to this) includes Users may additionally initiate this request to remove ... bureaucrat permissions. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, I updated the list. –xeno^talk 17:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I added this as there was concern expressed by Rschen7754 that stewards would not recognize a request to remove bureaucratship without an explicit policy basis (see case on the talk page.) So if someone is desysoped, they will be de-cratted automatically. Someone could also initiate this against a crat if there was concern, but I don't think we've ever had a case of someone explicitly only asking for crat rights to be removed, and I doubt they would start now. I disagree with Xaosflux's implication here that this is sneaky hidden somehow, since it was an afterthought added literally to make it clearer for stewards. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, it was added after. You should probably notify the 22 people that had supported it when the addition was made, as it changes the proposal. (Oh, you did)

  It’s late, but wouldn’t this mean that less people are needed to remove a bureaucrat than installed them? –xeno^talk 05:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's consistent with the process proposed for admins as well, and also consistent with the current process of having the same body remove +crat as would remove +sysop (AC). Anyway, as you say, it's late. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I updated the list, please double check. TonyBallioni: Since this expands the scope of the request could we make it more clear in the original notifications that it applies and can be used exclusively for the two other permissions also? –xeno^talk 17:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  If it passes, we might think about finally having bureaucrats be able to withdraw the bureaucrat privilege. The "crat gone rogue" scenario isn’t as scary as it used to be. –xeno^talk 05:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it was "sneaky" - just making sure it was clear to the audience of the Bureaucrats' noticeboard that a new process that can be used for community removal of bureaucrats has been proposed. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  So many edit conflicts. Was changing the word there to hidden. All's good here and no hurt feelings :). TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Interface Admin for AmandaNP & DeltaQuadBot

AmandaNP

AmandaNP (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi all. I have had requests from a few people over time for an easy way to update js code on Wikipedia while still having a proper bug/code review/versioning system behind it. I just filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 9. But to be able to edit other user's JS files, the bot will need interface admin permissions.
Policy also requires that I have the Int admin flag myself. I have assisted users with diagnosing and slightly modifying js/css code before, but I'll admit, I can't directly code in JavaScript. That being said, that wouldn't be my use for it. As a bot developer that solidly knows python and PHP, I can still clearly read JS and know what I'm screwing around with before I do it. I would not intend to edit any sitewide scripts or ones that affect a large amount of people. Just to assist getting this bot up and standard diagnosing of users having issues with scripts and their JS files. I'm also happy to answer any questions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Standard 48-hour hold for new IADMIN flags. @AmandaNP: this access requires that you have WP:2FA enabled on your account, do you have this yet? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, have had it on for a long time now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot

DeltaQuadBot (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 · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

 Not done @AmandaNP:, your bot request will need to pass WP:BRFA first. We won't need another 48 hour hold for the bot assuming your primary account has access. You will need to enroll your bot account in WP:2FA as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, figured that still required it's own discussion here. No worries. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Desysop again please

I took back the admin tools last year to help with the demands brought by the Covid-19 pandemic, which was putting pressure on existing admins. The need appears to have eased off since then, and I've performed very few admin actions in that area in 2021 (just a couple of blocks that were promptly addressed and reversed). I also have important personal priorities over the next few months, and removing all those Covid pages from my watchlist would greatly reduce the distraction. So please disable my admin tools again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Done - thanks for your work Boing! said Zebedee Worm^TT(talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)