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.
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
 | It is 06:40:01 on November 11, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
RfC notice
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_editing_on_Wikipedia_be_limited_to_accounts_only? - Notice about a discussion asking whether editing on Wikipedia should be limited to accounts only? - jc37 15:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Change to desysop/decrat policy
Please note that as the result of a recently-closed RfC, all user rights should be removed from users when they are indefinitely sitebanned by the community, including admin and 'crat if applicable. A section has been added at WP:DESYSOP and I have added this to WP:CRAT's list of cases in which a bureaucrat may desysop someone. It's not clear what the exact procedure would be for a decratting under this policy, which may be worth discussing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin I added a little more to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions to clarify that. The procedure would be the same for -sysop or -crat here - someone posts a request here at WP:BN, citing the criteria and providing the evidence. — xaosflux Talk 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- ..Thanks for the additional update, a posting here is prob best for "where to put the record" for those -crat's that don't come from arbcom - but yes, the actually processing follows from meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal of access for crats. — xaosflux Talk 18:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- As a historical note, it's interesting that the onetime presumption of desysop-by-steward has essentially been repealed at common law. That is to say, when desysop-by-'crat was first allowed, it was only under enumerated circumstances, with all others to still be handled by stewards (hence the weird artefact that stewards can unilaterally emergency-desysop but by the letter of policy 'crats can't). Desysop-by-'crat upon death was, I gather, added as an common-sense matter sometime thereafter, and shows the evolution away from that presumption of steward action. And now, more than a decade after 'crats gained the
-sysopperm, we've had an RfC that added a new cause for desysop but didn't specify a procedure, and no one's challenged the presumption that such a desysop would of course be actioned by 'crats. None of this is a criticism or call for any policy changes; I just find that an interesting case of wiki-common-law in action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)- One of the standard steward rules is that we don't manage permissions on local project with a community when they have the ability to do it themselves; so if a SRP for something like -sysop came up, we'd normally decline it when there exist local 'crats with such access. — xaosflux Talk 19:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- As a historical note, it's interesting that the onetime presumption of desysop-by-steward has essentially been repealed at common law. That is to say, when desysop-by-'crat was first allowed, it was only under enumerated circumstances, with all others to still be handled by stewards (hence the weird artefact that stewards can unilaterally emergency-desysop but by the letter of policy 'crats can't). Desysop-by-'crat upon death was, I gather, added as an common-sense matter sometime thereafter, and shows the evolution away from that presumption of steward action. And now, more than a decade after 'crats gained the
- ..Thanks for the additional update, a posting here is prob best for "where to put the record" for those -crat's that don't come from arbcom - but yes, the actually processing follows from meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal of access for crats. — xaosflux Talk 18:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Resignation as Administrator (Ddstretch)
- ddstretch (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)
Resignation as Administrator. Please accept my resignation as Administrator. Chronic illness has prevented me from contributing to Wikipedia for some time. This is likely to continue for an unknown amount of time. If the situation improves, I will be happy to take up the reins again. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Done That has been done for you User:ddstretch. I wish you well. SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)