Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gazimoff (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 8 July 2011 (→‎Pressing on: cmt.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Bureaucrat tasks
    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.
    Shortcuts

    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 1
    RfBs 0
    Overdue RfBs 0
    Overdue RfAs 0
    BRFAs 14
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    HouseBlaster 106 7 0 94 Open 00:50, 23 June 2024 2 days, 21 hours no report
    It is 03:44:29 on June 20, 2024, according to the server's time and date.



    Contribs merge

    Resolved
     – This is not something developers generally do as they have generally have more pressing needs. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I would like to kindly ask for reassignment of the contributions from my previous account, Brandmeister (old) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to my current Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account; so far the contributions are split between the two with most of edits being linked to Brandmeister (old). I was once informed that it's not possible to merge accounts, but hope there is a way out from my hardship. Brandmeister t 00:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can confirm each account is your own (eg: by editing each userpage with the opposite username), you could probably ask the tech guys to do it. Peachey88 (T · C) 02:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Developers probably can do it, but convincing them that it's a good expenditure of their time is another thing. It best to just mention that you had another account which is no longer used, and link the two that way. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing RfC on bureaucrat promotion

    Resolved
     – I have closed the discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The now-ended RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Changing the Requests for Bureaucratship promotion threshold? is still in need of closing. Since the discussion concerns standards for promoting 'crats, I believe many people think it would be most appropriate for one of you to close it rather than having a non-crat admin do it. There was some discussion here about closing it a week or so ago, but no one has done so yet. If someone could step up, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of Sysop right for inactive Admins

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins passed with an overwhelming consensus. The procedural removal of Admin rights needs to be preformed on some 200 inactive Admins. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As this removal was done in violation of the policy, the rights should be reinstated. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should just leave them and continue as normal... if any inactives return they can be reinstated. It seems a waste of time to readmin them all only to have to deadmin again. AD 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, the User:Orphaned image deletion bot should be reflagged, as a bot that has sysop rights to delete pages, it never edits, and always appears inactive on a list of admin by last edit. Might want to check and see if other admin bots got flags removed in this, as well. Courcelles 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maxim has restored ops for the Orphaned image bot. Any others? –xenotalk 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see any others in the Meta log. Courcelles 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrats do not have the ability to remove admin rights from any account, inactive or otherwise. Useight (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They should all be messaged right now though, perhaps by a bot, according to the policy. RA should have done this before posting here. I shall go trout him. AD 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think it would make sense for bureaucrats to be able to desysop accounts themselves. Especially now when such actions will need to be done more frequently. Jafeluv (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The community rejected that for reasons I still don't understand last year. Regards SoWhy 20:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's time for another proposal, since the community is finally seeing sense it seems. AD 21:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for that. I started a discussion at the Proposals VP about it. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a great result. Recently imo it has become clear that admins returning after lengthy periods need a bit of re integrating and re training before letting loose, this will enable at least a little discussion, so, after two years of not contributing you want to be a administrator again... why not edit for a couple of months and contribute again and we can see how you get along. The tools should not be easily returned to long term non contributing accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a discussion for another day though; as the proposal was worded, former administrators can get their tools back with a simple "yes, I am up to date on policy" statement. NW (Talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored a few +sysop bits that had logged actions that were before the one-year mark. I skippped one because the action was on July 7 (not getting fussy over a few days), two because they were clearly leaving (deleted user/talk pages). I restored an admin who shouldn't have be resysoped because they were clearly leaving, so I'm getting that fixed. And, with regards to 'crat rights - the admin package, while independent, really comes before the 'crat package. Seeing as the role of bureaucrats tends to be more politicized, it doesn't make sense to leave a user with 'crat flag but without an admin flag, because the policy doesn't explicity mention bureaucrat rights. Maxim(talk) 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to the bureaucrats, I would argue with at least part of this RFC passing, the community has at least partially agreed that admin/crat are separate enough to handle independently of oneanother. NW (Talk) 01:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, a talkpage note should be left for each of those 200 admins, explaining what's going on, and how they can request the bit back. --Elonka 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Elonka. Unlike Meta or Commons, our new inactivity policy doesn't require a fresh RFA for a returning admin, so ~250 reflaggings at this point would be a poor use of time. Let's get the notices out, and see what the response is. However, this really should not have happened, and in the future, the notifications need to be done before the deflaggings. Courcelles 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to the Arbitration Policy all request for removal of administrative tools (other than self-requests) are handled by the Arbitration Committee. So, I amended the Administrator Policy to reflect this. Ruslik_Zero 10:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that ArbCom would want to see an RFAR every time an inactive admin needs the tools removed.... T. Canens (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be done in batches. Ruslik_Zero 10:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear to me, at least, that if the community has decided to remove admin rights from certain administrators due to inactivity then that has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee nor the Arbitration Policy. ArbCom need not be involved in this in any way, shape or form. Besides, they have more important things to do. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, on reading the policy I note that it says they exist to "handle requests for removal", not "handle all requests for removal", so even if you go by the policy they have no reason to be involved either. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. It is clear that they handle all requests with just one exception. Ruslik_Zero 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree both with your assertion that it is clear and with your assertion that they handle all requests. It does not say 'all', and excluding one subcategory of 'removal of requests' does not automatically mean all other possible subcategories are included. Bear in mind, I used to be an arbitrator, and I can tell you with confidence that had something like this proposal happened while I was an arbitrator, ArbCom would have no need to get involved. However it is clear that the wording of the policy needs to be clarified, either way. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbitration policy needs to be updated, if it states that. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All is not included because it had been superfluous before the latest policy change was adopted—after all, Arbcom historically handled all requests except obvious cases of self-removal. There is another problem, though. This policy (removal of inactive administrators) did not specify how it should be have been done procedurally. As a result the first such request was successfully bungled. So, it is important to have an independent review before any tools are removed. Ruslik_Zero 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the Arbitration policy to take into account the results of the discussion mentioned at the very top of this section., basically, I added "from active administrators" to the "To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools" entry under the scope of the policy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit represents a substantial change in the arbitration policy , and has been reverted (there may be instances where the committee needs to remove the rights of an administrator who is not active). In lieu, Kirill added a footnote, which I've tweaked slightly to reference and mirror the admin policy section on this. –xenotalk 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that I agree with "substantial", but whatever. The Arbs have far too much sway and stick their noses into too many places it doesn't belong. They have their places and their uses, but they too often overstep their authority and hand down edicts from on high, as it were. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was substantial in that it changed the policy such that the committee could only desysop active administrators. Amendments to the policy must follow this procedure. (Withholding comment on the remainder of your remark.) –xenotalk 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ← As an FYI, the committee did have some brief discussions on this (see "D" in this announcement). The committee does not necessarily need to be included (as this was a community-driven initiative), but would be willing to play a role if the agreed-upon implementation included the committee. My personal thoughts are that the procedure should not be "just anyone post at m:SRP for removal of rights any time an administrator hits the inactivity period", as that would be too chaotic for stewards. The optimal solution would be a monthly or quarterly posting to m:SRP by someone in an official capacity (e.g. an arbitrator or a bureaucrat) after that individual carefully reviewed the list of admins to have their rights removed and ensured that 1) they meet the criteria [several in this mass removal did not] and 2) they have been appropriately notified [none in this mass removal were appropriately notified]. –xenotalk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the language Ruslik0 added, since the interpretation of ArbCom involvement being required wasn't in the RfC and doesn't seem to have support from others who have commented here. But I agree with xeno that a more organized process should be developed, whether it involves ArbCom or not. Having random people show up on Meta asking for desysoppings under the new policy would be a mess. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pressing on

    So how are we going to move on from this? Is someone going to send out messages to all those admins? I am a strong proponent of adminship not being for life (and long after), but this was rushed inappropriately and now we have dozens of desysopped admins who should have been notified. AD 11:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the notices should go out first to see if there's any response. I suppose time will tell whether or not all the desysop stuff has to go through the arbs or crats .. or whatever. We tend to tweak things when there's been this big of a change. I don't think that once the current group is all resolved there's really more than a handful a month that drift into that "inactive" category. Then again, it's not like I'm one of the big guns here.— Ched :  ?  11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested draft follows. –xenotalk 12:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Looks fine to me. To avoid future rash actions, may I suggest that it be expressly stated in this new policy that requests to stewards to remove rights from admins on inactivy grounds must be made to them by enwiki bureaucrats? WJBscribe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Limiting the requests to bureaucrats makes sense, and it's probably better to do the removals in batches as suggested above since there's no immediate hurry to get the rights removed at the exact moment. Xeno's wording sounds good to me. Jafeluv (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, after this initial batch, what is the actual anticipated throughput of this process likely to be? That is, how many admin accounts fall into long-term inactivity per month? I'm assuming it's fewer than twenty, and a monthly cycle would be sufficient. Send out notifications during the first week of the month, and run the desysop after the end of the month. Allowing a three-week response window shouldn't do any great harm—what's the difference between 56 weeks of inactivity and 52 weeks? We'll pretty much avoid the hassle of resysopping individuals who are travelling away from internet access, and it allows breathing room to review the batch of potential desysops for errors like the one made with the orphaned image bot. It means that everyone knows what to expect from the process, and it means that the stewards get bugged just once per month.
    As a second point, will an attempt be made to contact the admins using their registered email addresses as well as through their talk pages? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can get an idea of how many will be removed per month on this page, although as pointed out above it's not entirely accurate. As for the second point, the policy as currently written requires both a talk page notice and notification by email. Jafeluv (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    At present, any admin who is inactive since several months will have had their "email notification on talk page change" configuration flipped on, though I still think an explicit email should be sent. –xenotalk 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons and Meta both do it every six months, and require more activity than our policy does. We've got a lot more admins than either project, though. I'd think every quarter, though, would be easier on overhead and process, than a monthly process, especially as the policy requires notification a month before removal. Running this monthly would make it a constant drain on resources. Courcelles 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wants to be using Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive for anything that matters (like removing admin bits), the bot really should be changed so it looks at logged actions in addition to edits. I won't have a chance to do this for at least a week or two. The relevant source is at User:Rick_Bot/scripts/getadminactivity if anyone might be interested in working on this before I get to it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with several of the suggestions above: The wording of Xeno's proposed notice looks good; I like the idea of funneling the requests at meta through the 'crats; and I think a quarterly process would be just fine. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Xeno's wording looks good, thanks. I might add a date that the policy changed, just for context, but that's a minor quibble. We may also want to consider updating WP:RESYSOP to allow for a streamlined process if/when an inactive admin returns. --Elonka 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any suggestions? The process is already pretty streamlined; the request immediately above was fulfilled in 6 hours... –xenotalk 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe just a phrase after "uncontroversial", like, "...uncontroversial, such as if the administrator access was removed only due to inactivity." --Elonka 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How's this then? –xenotalk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick turnaround! I made a few minor tweaks.[1] Feel free to continue tweaking? --Elonka 17:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with WJB's comment that the people requesting to stewards for removal should be some sort of functionary-types who will ensure procedural due process is followed. I'm very concerned at the lack of notifications in the above request that occurred immediately after the policy was changed and the negative impact this could have on returning users and do not expect to see it repeated. MBisanz talk 17:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We also need to get notifications out to all the folks who were affected by the premature removals. The good news is that the odds of any given person from that list reappearing in the next few days are low, so probably notices will be out before anyone comes back to find their permissions mysteriously changed. But I think everyone (including the person who initiated it) agrees this was mishandled, a mistake to avoid repeating. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should feel free to take my proposed wording and run with it. Maybe add a "With thanks for your past administrative efforts." –xenotalk 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we put it in a template? That would make it easier to work on. Looking at CAT:UWT, maybe something like {{inactiveadmin}}? --Elonka 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Preliminary version of a template created at Template:Inactive admin. Please review and change as seems appropriate. This is for notifying those who have already had their privileges suspended. I assume we will also want to create standard messages for the pre-suspension notifications called for in the RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    List of users needing notification: [2]. –xenotalk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RL0919, I checked {{inactive admin}}, and made a few tweaks.[3] --Elonka 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Xeno, Elonka and Graham87 for their edits to the template. Are folks comfortable enough with its wording for the notifications to begin? --RL0919 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me, I'd say proceed. --Elonka 16:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing no objections, I started delivering notifications. Going alphabetically; did the A-B-Cs so far. I no fancy-shmancy bot writer, so I'm just doing it with AWB. Will probably work on it off-and-on over the weekend unless someone else beats me to finishing it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider driving User:MessageDeliveryBot. At the least, please enable "Do not use section edit summaries" in AWB (per WP:NEWSECTION =) –xenotalk 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who got picked up by this policy change, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's a good move and I appreciate that you're making the effort to notify people, even after the fact. As they say, no harm, no foul. Gazimoff 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FORMER

    How should this change be reflected on WP:FORMER? Could someone go through and add the current batch who were removed? Thanks. MBisanz talk 18:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend a new header/section altogether. –xenotalk 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    [4] ? Pedro :  Chat  19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Here's the list. I've pasted it to that section. –xenotalk 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah - I was just moaning over how to get the list in easily and saw you did it :) Good work, agree with the changes and reposition. Incidentally, did you note the change from "some" to "many"? I think that's pretty uncontroversial given the numbers but willing to be challeneged. Pedro :  Chat  19:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Many" seems reasonable, especially given today's addition of the 250+ some-odd that are definitely not active... –xenotalk 19:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (just FYI I got the list by copypasting [5] and then using Excel to chop it up with the find/replace to insert a delimiter followed by the "text-to-column" feature, then used WP:AWB's list comparer to compare the resulting list with the list of admins to filter out the ones that got re-upped)[reply]
    Yeah, yeah I was going to do it that way to. Geek. :) Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, bearing in mind that they didn't resign nor were they desysopped for abuse, so a separate section is necessary here. Acalamari 19:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks smart people! MBisanz talk 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Revisiting the proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin bit

    Per this discussion at WP:VPR, there seems to be sufficient consensus to re-visit this proposal which failed in the beginning of 2010. As I wrote at VPR, I created two RFC drafts for this proposal, one for the technical ability and one for the policy (with thanks to RL0919 and xeno for the idea):

    Since I am not skilled in creating RFCs and this board is visited by many users interested in bureaucrat-related topics, I would like to invite your help in creating these RFCs. Note: Those are still drafts and I need people to help me finish them. Especially since the last RFC had unclear scope and wording, I think we should try to be extra careful in the wording and layout. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not saying I'd oppose either, as I'd want to think it through fairly well first. Two notes though. One, it certainly does change the power structure around this joint if it would go through. and Two: I'm not sure that running both proposals concurrently is the best method. Seems it could get a tad confusing to some. Meaning that perhaps we need to establish "IF" the crats should have the ability first. Then worry about when to apply it once it's been granted. Certainly food for thought. Awaiting further input, and both pages watchlisted. — Ched :  ?  21:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand a bit on my line of thought. There is already a huge divide between admin. and non-admin. The fact that we have some .. ummmm .. anxious(?) administrators who have no qualms about placing a "block" when there may be some gray areas, and questionable circumstances often leads to much drama and discord among the rank and file. Having a "rogue(?) crat that simply "takes away the bit" (even if agreed upon by fellow crats) seems to move "GovCom" to "GovCrats". — Ched :  ?  22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I expect that a "rogue" bureaucrat who started desysopping people outside of established policy would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an ArbCom hearing. A rogue admin might get away with wrongly blocking some naif who doesn't know how to fight back. But in a wrongful desysopping the victim would be someone well versed in wikipolitics, with a cadre of probably sympathetic fellow admins to help the case along. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, and I can sympathize with that viewpoint. However, let's admit that any and all of the "ArbCom desysop" efforts are certainly not without their share of drama and often divisive effects. They are also quite difficult in reaching a decision, and often the results of multiple cases. Are we sure we want another layer of complexity here? — Ched :  ?  22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This could actually reduce the complexity. Rather than having to take an admin to ArbCom (which in itself is a lot of work and requires a fairly large incident) in order to get a removal of the bit, a consensus on ANI would suffice. Similar to the way that community bans are issued, the process could remove the drama of the desysop, at least a bit. Having seen a few of both go through, bans imposed by the community are by and large less divisive and dramatic than those imposed by ArbCom. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Bureaucrats, as recently confirmed, have the highest bar to jump over in terms of community trust. I have never understood why the power to make admins is granted to 'crats, but not the obviously important tool of removing the sysop buttons. I think the dual drafts, while possibly confusing to some, are a good idea, as the power and the criteron for de-adminship should be considered apart. Jusdafax 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: As I said above, those are only drafts, so starting to discuss and/or !vote on them now makes no sense, since they wording may still change. Instead of fragmenting the discussion again by now talking about the merits of the proposal(s) here, I would really ask you to help draft those RFCs, so we can start having the discussion there soon. It's evident that there is some need to discuss this but doing so here or at the RFCs' talk pages just defies the point of having RFC(s) in the first place. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag for bot

    Hello, 'crats - could I get a bot flag for User:HersfoldArbClerkBot please? It got approved recently but doesn't have the flag yet. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, sorry for the delay... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason it's still sitting in the "trial completed" section, which would explain the delay (i.e. it was never moved to WP:BRFAA). –xenotalk 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok. Thanks much! Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit now "live"

    The two Requests for Comment mentioned above are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts

    Since this affects crats, please take note of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=438485918"