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 7 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	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

It is 16:48:27 on May 1, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Moriori (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)}

Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter, a person is logged into an admin account (i don't believe they mean any harm, but still). Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)@Bureaucrats: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that CU can confirm any of this, the most recent post under Moriori's account was made from the same IP they've been using for about a month, so I'd call this credible. I've asked a steward to lock. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was Locked by AntiCompositeNumber. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin rights switched off per procedure. SilkTork (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates, agree while it was technically "compromised" seems as if it was certainly in good faith. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RIP. Per his classic entry in the village stocks, this is not the first time that his account has been taken over. :-) Graham87 11:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, what a droll story. It looks like moving the Main Page is no longer in the standard admin toolkit, only changing its protection level. RIP to Moriori and thank you for your many years of service to the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's much more difficult to delete the Main page than it used to be, as well. Graham87 12:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only stewards can delete the main page? What is this restriction? Thingofme (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a way around the main page deletion restriction, fwiw. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do I dare even ask? Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I think it's best to just let me know if the need to delete the Main Page ever arises. :-) Maxim_(talk) 16:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wrote "much more difficult" rather than "impossible" for a good reason. Graham87 09:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page --B (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nihiltres (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, I'd like to request the interface administrator permission, on a permanent basis. I have some history of editing MediaWiki-space CSS and JS pages, but can no longer edit those pages without this additional permission. In particular, I'd like the ability to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-metadata.js and associated pages, to make it easier to maintain that gadget. I also regularly do template work on widely-transcluded templates, where the permission is occasionally useful. For example, I'm thinking of renaming some classes used by {{importance}}, and it'd be nice to proactively unbreak ~40 user CSS pages that would be affected if I made such edits. As a bonus, I'd also like to make a habit of reviewing interface edit requests if given the permission.

I've been an administrator since 2007, I'm using 2FA on my account, and I believe I'm reasonably well-trusted and have a good understanding of CSS and JavaScript. Hopefully this is an easy request. Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nihiltres, per Wikipedia:Interface_administrators#Process_for_requesting that starts a 48 hour hour process just in case anyone has concerns. But you've given a rationale and committed to 2FA, so unless someone speaks up before 20:49 on the 16th I or I suspect the first crat to check this board after that time can flip that bit. ϢereSpielChequers 21:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nihiltres has made some irresponsible edits to high use templates, which resulted in broken markup appearing in a lot of pages. They do not have the competence necessary to edit sitewide css and js pages. 2409:4071:4D99:B70E:0:0:4388:9C06 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ^{[citation needed]} — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See this and the next few edits. 2405:204:529B:A4C0:0:0:F04:18A5 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I acknowledge that that set of edits was overly bold; I made a mistake. On the other hand, I don't think that the few mistakes I've made collectively rise to a pattern of negligence. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm unconvinced of the one error being a pattern of being unreliable with this perm - although I appreciate this did have a wide effect. Is there any discussions or additional items where there has been any community issues raised with this user having this permission? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, an incident from last year doesn't seem like an a redline here. I think that Nihiltres will exert more restraint on pages the larger they are - there is a huge difference between gadget-metadata.js' impact potential and common.js' - and trust he will use appropriate judgement (... less we hang him from the village stocks!). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that Nihiltres cleaned up the error (albeit in a few different steps). I know I've muddled my way through a few things like that. Sometimes it's hard to determine exactly how wide-reaching something may be. Regardless of any of that, people make mistakes, and there doesn't seem to be a pattern of them or anything that indicates the mistakes are rising to abusive levels. I suspect the IP knows that, and that's why they chose to remain anonymous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I don't think the policy actually gives bureaucrats the ability to decline to grant the right. There's a comment period, but the policy is ambiguous and while it says the final decision rests with the bureaucrat, there's no mention of any requirement beyond requesting with a rationale. If there was an obvious community consensus against it, or someone pointed out something that the caused the admin requesting to withdraw, the waiting period would serve its effect. If you actually read the proposal that limited it to admins (see here) it was a weak consensus without any actual agreement on anything beyond the requirement that someone be an admin and there be a waiting period. In other words, the community wanted a wait for comment, but didn't give crats discretion to refuse in the actual RfC. Add to that the policy wording is ambiguous and I don't *think* we've had a request turned down. In other words, unless there's unambiguous community consensus against this or the request is withdrawn, I don't really see crats having a choice. Probably doesn't matter here, but since is the first time I've ever seen opposition to it, worth bringing up in case anyone wants to clarify the policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, welcome to the 'crat team following your successful RfB. As a former janitor, you are already familiar with the executive washroom. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show myself about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]