Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:20, 7 August 2011 editSoWhy (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators62,325 edits →Desysop implementation: add correct bugzilla link← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:59, 7 August 2011 edit undoSoWhy (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators62,325 edits →Closing the desysop RFCs?: re-closed - I made the changes, please review that I didn't screw upNext edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:
	:::Chzz's close allows for "uncontroversial procedure" desysops. Self-requests certainly are not controversial. Neither are the after-a-year desysops, at least according to the recent RfC. Desysops at ArbCom's whim, while certainly something I would not consider uncontroverial, is at least fully backed by policy. Even desysoping an admin that goes on a mad blocking spree is not that controvertial, although as Chzz said "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" comes into play. See my above comment on your options. ] ] 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)		:::Chzz's close allows for "uncontroversial procedure" desysops. Self-requests certainly are not controversial. Neither are the after-a-year desysops, at least according to the recent RfC. Desysops at ArbCom's whim, while certainly something I would not consider uncontroverial, is at least fully backed by policy. Even desysoping an admin that goes on a mad blocking spree is not that controvertial, although as Chzz said "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" comes into play. See my above comment on your options. ] ] 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
	I have withdrawn my closure of the ] , and thus leave it to others. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 04:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)		I have withdrawn my closure of the ] , and thus leave it to others. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 04:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

			:Now re-closed by {{user\|Crazynas}} and {{user\|HJ Mitchell}} with 1-3 passing and 4 not passing. I to the policy, hope no one minds. Regards ''']]''' 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

	== Desysop implementation ==		== Desysop implementation ==

Revision as of 18:59, 7 August 2011

v t e Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators	Noticeboard Requests for adminship watch talk talk archives Administrator elections watch talk De-adminship Recall Adminship reform unbundling Successful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Unsuccessful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Resysopped administrators Inactive administrators Former administrators
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Requests for bureaucratship Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological
AdE/RfX participants	Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Optional RfA candidate poll RfA nominations Request nom Self-nomination Advice for voters Asking questions Arguments to avoid Debriefs
History & statistics	RFA reform RFA by year RFA by month Desysoppings by month
Useful pages	Searchbox RFX report Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log AdE category RFA category
Current admin count: 848 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 15 (list all)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Centralized discussion

Bureaucrat tasks

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 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	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	15
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 05:49:32 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Resysop Request

I'd be most grateful if you could restore my sysop privleges which were recently remove due to inactivity. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'll get to this after lunch. MBisanz 12:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done (since it looks like MBisanz has taken a very long lunch). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, life distracted me. MBisanz 22:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Was the lunch really that amazing? What did you have?

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A question (and suggestion) regarding user name requests

I've been active in some admin areas, but not in reviewing unblock requests. I started looking at some today. Three of the requests were requests to unblock so they could apply for a new user name. In all cases, the editor had under 100 edits, and was using a name associated with a corporation or entity.

It is my opinion that such requests should be rejected, and the editor should be advised to simply abandon the unacceptable user name and create a new one. I think we also suggest that an editor should provide a link to the other account, if they create a new one (per WP:SOC "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts.") I suggest this qualifies as one of the legitimate exceptions. If we don't want a user to appear to be editing on behalf of XYZCorp, a notice on Jane Doe's user page that she is the user formerly known as user:XYZCorp defeats the purpose.

It is my belief that 'crats will not do a rename when there are few edits associated with the first account, per the advice in Misplaced Pages:Username policy: "User accounts with few or no edits will not normally be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account."

However, that advice does not define "few". I think it could be as high as 250, but I suspect that will be viewed as too high, so I propose that "few" be defined as "fewer than 100". Of course, if there is some convention, please let me know.

If we can agree on a number, recognizing that this is merely a guideline, and requests with fewer can be honored with good cause (and those with more might also be rejected), we should modify the advice given in the standard unblock request template, to let them know that they shouldn't bother requesting a change in username, if they have fewer than n edits, whatever we decide n to be. It seems quite odd that we would encourage them to request a change in name, then reject that change in name, when we knew it would be rejected.--SPhilbrick T 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually we only decline requests for rename when the account is very new and has only a few insignificant edits. And by few, we're talking about, say five or ten. If they've got dozens of edits it will probably be processed. MMV. –xeno 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought the bar was a bit higher.

One editor I reviewed had 6 edits, I trust that would be rejected. Another had 39 or so, it sounds like that one would be accepted. It still may be useful to modify the template, so that editors with five edits aren't encouraged to request a new name.--SPhilbrick T 16:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In cases such as this, if they really want to keep their existing edits, I just rename them. It takes far less time, and is more friendly and non-bitey to the new editor than insisting they have to abandon their new account. Renaming is basically just reviewing a few pages and then clicking a button. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I must have misremembered. Somewhere I got the impression that it was enough work, that it might not be done for a handful. Sounds like it is more commonly accepted than I had thought.--SPhilbrick T 17:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Nihonjoe: it's not that big of a deal to fulfill the rename, and there are benefits to having the attendant history move to the user's new compliant username. –xeno 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll chime in with xeno and Nihonjoe; it's far less bitey, which I think is the better option, as there's a slightly higher chance (IMO; I have nothing to back up that opinion, just a gut feeling) that we'll get a productive editor out of the situation. Net positive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, about the only time I don't do a rename is if it specifically violates a policy or guideline (a company name, a vulgar word/phrase, etc.) or if they keep wanting a name change every five minutes. Otherwise, I'll generally just go through with it. It's really not that much work to do it. Perhpas we'd be more picky if we were really, really busy, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (note: this comment is not to be used by anyone as a reason to not appoint more bureaucrats). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I use it as an opportunity. I'll typically request they confirm they have read WP:COI and understand it applies regardless of username, before I agree to the request. Saves the grief of them going off and breaching COI on another account. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea. Requiring a rename (as opposed to abandon-and-generate-new-account) ensures an unbroken history, so if/when the obviously promo account starts editing in a COI way, it's easy to see where that started. → ROUX ₪ 09:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion to abandon a username and just create another mixes WP:BEANS into WP:SOCK. My wish is that every new IP editor be auto-offered an available and pronouncible username to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a 'crat be so kind as to

Close Misplaced Pages talk:Bot Approvals Group#BAG Nomination: Slakr? It's been over a week. --Chris 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, although I wasn't aware it needed to be a Crat that did this. If a BAG member could write up a brief "how to do" for closing these noms and add it to WP:BUREAUCRAT, I'd be grateful, as I kind of made it up as I was going along. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant templates are shown in the table at Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures, but there could perhaps bit a bit more explanation there... –xeno 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's barely mentions BAG at all. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a section to the page, although I might have missed something. --Chris 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Centralized talk page for username change discussions

In the interest of convenience and ensuring our customers receive timely responses, I've centralized discussions related to username changes to Misplaced Pages talk:Changing username. Any bureaucrats or other interested users should watch that page if they haven't already. –xeno 15:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysop request

Once the parallel RFCs on giving bureaucrats the ability to desysop conclude, and the ability is implemented, I'd like to be the first to be voluntarily desysopped by a 'crat. I'm retired, so there's no rush (and why I'm asking now), and if it gets forgotten, that's not a big deal either. Thanks. Rd232 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sure it'll be dealt with whenever. It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

" It can be processed immediately by a steward though, so that's probably the best approach. " - I'm well aware; if I wanted that, I'd have asked for it. Rd232 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want to be desysopped then that's the approach I suggest you take. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I could make a request here and now, and in a week or three once they're able, a 'crat would do it. I don't want a steward to do it. If it's too much trouble, then never mind, I'll get desysopped for inactivity in a year. cheers, Rd232 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What about 'crats who are stewards (there are two of us). In the cases of self-requests (or other non-controversial situations) stewards may act on home wikis. So is it that you do not want to bother on meta, or do you want someone acting as a 'crat to remove the bit? -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a guess, but Rd232 probably wants the local rights log to reflect the change. –xeno 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well (a) I wanted the log to be local (b) I supported giving crats the ability, and thought it would be nice to be (among) the first to be desysopped by a crat. It seemed a simple idea but I guess it's throwing people a bit. Rd232 00:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem waiting for the RFCs to end before handling this. He said he's in no hurry. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's leave it there. If someone remembers, great; if not, that's fine too. Rd232 08:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing the desysop RFCs?

Hi there. Since thirty days have almost passed on those RfCs and discussion seems to have slowed down, I guess they are soon ready to be closed. That means, we need to find someone to do so. Obviously, it shouldn't be a crat since they are the ones directly affected by it but I was wondering, whether we should ask a member of ArbCom to do it, seeing as they are probably one of the most trusted group on this project. Thoughts? Different suggestions? Regards So Why 15:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For once, these closes are hardly rocket science; finding an 'impartial' closer is more for form's sake than a genuine need. It should be fairly easy to find someone from ArbCom to close it; I agree that they should be asked. Happy‑melon 15:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Any senior editor in good standing has the authority to close this. Sure, the Arbitrators are all "senior editors in good standing", but don't ask them to close it just because they were elected to a dispute resolution body. NW (Talk) 15:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of asking an ArbCom member is not due to their duties but rather because they are trusted by the community. Sure, any editor in good standing can close them but imho it should be done by someone whose close will be accepted by almost every editor, so we can avoid people later arguing about the close. If you know anyone else we should ask, your suggestions are of course welcome. I can only think of people who either !voted in the RfCs or who are on ArbCom. Regards So Why 16:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just ask Jimbo to close it.

···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo would work, but so would a bunch of other people; some that immediately come to mind are WereSpielChequers, AlexandrDmitri, PeterSymonds, Sasata, Paul August, Acdixon, the list goes on. Of course, many of the Arbitrators are on that list, but to my mind, they definitely should not be on that list because they are on ArbCom. If people would have disputed the close but didn't because the closing editor was an Arbitrator, that sets a bad precedent, IMO. IIRC, Risker's closure of the first WP:BLPRFC specifically noted that she was closing it on her own "authority", not ArbCom's. NW (Talk) 16:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, so sorry if I sounded differently. I didn't suggest ArbCom members because they are on ArbCom but rather meant that they are on ArbCom because they are trusted. I'm just happy if anyone you mentioned did it, although I would not ask PeterSymonds; I have the greatest respect for him but as a steward, he might be perceived as biased since the proposals transfer "power" from stewards to local crats. Regards So Why 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems somewhat odd that anyone would choose who will close an RFC. Are we to compile a list of applicants for the position of closer? Are we supposed to have an election to choose the closer? Is someone going to put a big note on the page stating that THOU SHALT NOT CLOSE THIS RFC UNLESS YOU ARE CHOSEN by the community to perform this action? The thought that an admin or an editor in good standing, who probably has an opinion regarding the verdict, is not going to have commented in the discussion for the purpose of being able to maintain an appearance of impartiality so that they can do the closing....? What do you do if I or someone else who isn't on your "list" just wanders by and closes it at some point? Do you revert the close because it was done by someone not on the list? How about we just let the process take care of itself and trust people to do the right thing and if something goes sideways just deal with it if necessary instead or trying to over-engineer the situation? --After Midnight 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but surely, we need an RFC to determine who can be authorised to draw up such a a list of applicants? O_O Christ; I know where I am here, but, there is a limit to the need for bureaucracy, surely. Chzz ► 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm...I came back here to apologize for sarcasm in the above. But, in doing so, I actually looked. Are we talking about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts here? Which has 99 supports, and 1 oppose; the opposer having been blocked? And this is considered 'controversial'? Blimey. Chzz ► 19:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you misunderstood my question here. It's not about who is "allowed" to close them. Anyone in good standing who did not participate in them can do so (as I said above), so there is no need for such "doomsday" scenarios. But given the face that they were widely advertised, probably anyone interested has already seen them and commented on them and of those who didn't, I think many are wary to close such RfCs. Hence the question whether to ask someone from ArbCom to do it, since they are used to making difficult situations (and I don't think I can neutrally estimate whether the close would be difficult or not). That said, if either of you want to close them, I'd be fine with that. :-)

@Chzz: No, this is about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy. Regards So Why 19:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx; I'll have a look later. I'll close the one I mentioned now. Ta. Chzz ► 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the request here seems to have been misinterpreted, I have placed what I hope is a very neutrally worded request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Closures requested for desysop-related RfCs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and apologies for any misunderstanding.

I closed Remove bureaucrat bit from inactive accounts because, frankly, it was a no-brainer, SNOW, and if anyone objects to it being a few hours early, I shall scream.

WRT Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, amazingly enough, I have not participated, and could therefore close them. But, given the cautions above, I am slightly hesitant; perhaps I should not be. I'm happy to offer my services as a neutral 3rd party; I could assess consensus and close, if that would be helpful, but if some might be concerned by such tenacity, I would rather refrain. Opinion welcome, but if you'd prefer HWH Mr. Wales, I quite understand. Best, Chzz ► 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) No sarcasm this time, excepting a minor dig at Mr. Wales

As far as I'm concerned, any experienced uninvolved editor could close them. I started my posting to WP:AN before you volunteered to close the other one. The consensus is pretty obvious anyway, so I don't think there should be much controversy unless the close is something wacky. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. Of course, I cannot predict how I might close something, before doing it; Non-authoritative: a cursory scan indicates that there is clear positive consensus, although there are some valid points in opposition to consider. It might take me time(day?) to close it, to consider the opinions expressed.

As this has just been posted on AN, I shall pause for some hours before imposing myself. I know a few hours isn't "fair" - but then again, no time is necessary, and I feel that a short hiatus gives at least some opportunity for my esteemed fellows to scream NO, NOT HER, HE IS A FOOL and so forth.

So, I'll give it an hour or so from now. -Your humble-ish Wikipedian, Chzz ► 20:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not disappeared, I may as well wait for 0:00 proper time (another 1¼ hours) Chzz ► 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, when dealing with sensitive community issues, going to the Arbs isn't a very good idea. Sure, I happen to have respect for most of them (but most certainly not all of them) as individual editors, but ArbCom itself is a rather contentious entity with not if not widespread, certainly a good number of, staunch detractors. There are plenty of other options for closing discussions, going to ArbCom should be a last resort. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing... Chzz ► 23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done - be careful with that axe, Eugene. Chzz ► 01:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that you were right to close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy the way you did, I think you have misunderstood what it was about. Mt king 01:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation may be colored by the fact that the close didn't declare no consensus for the proposal that you opposed (even though 80% of those commenting supported it). --RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that he not addressed each section, nor updated the pages that were "amended", and given the overwhelming support for the other proposals (none of which had more than 10 detractors) and the number of editors opposing expressing concerns over the wording (including myself), I do think it needs to be looked at (remember to become a crat needs ~85% support to be deemed a consensus). Mt king 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that an explicit statement saying "Motions 1, 2, and 3 passed. Motion 4 (both versions) did not achieve consensus." would have been nice, but I didn't wade though the mud to make the close, Chzz did. You therefore have two options. a) accept it and move on, or b) take it to the approrpiate review forum, where someone else will reach the same conclusion Chzz did, with slightly different wording, at which point you're back at a). Sven Manguard Wha? 01:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what is the "approrpiate review forum" as I can find no mention ? Mt king 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As an impartial party, I assessed ALL the points made, to the very best of my ability; I tried my best. I felt 300-30(ish) was compellling; I did NOT discount the other RfC as trivia, and, indeed, how many RfC closures incorporate a "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" with our trust.. Can't please all the people all the time, of course; and I'm very open to criticism. I endaeavour to improve this project in any way I can, and judging such decisions is a part of that, which inevitably will cause disagreement from some parties. Chzz ► 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you understand what the second RfC was about ? from you answer it appears you might not have. The second one was about how they use it.Mt king 02:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Chzz ► 02:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz's close allows for "uncontroversial procedure" desysops. Self-requests certainly are not controversial. Neither are the after-a-year desysops, at least according to the recent RfC. Desysops at ArbCom's whim, while certainly something I would not consider uncontroverial, is at least fully backed by policy. Even desysoping an admin that goes on a mad blocking spree is not that controvertial, although as Chzz said "BE FUCKING CAREFUL" comes into play. See my above comment on your options. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my closure of the 2nd RfC , and thus leave it to others. Best, Chzz ► 04:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now re-closed by Crazynas (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) with 1-3 passing and 4 not passing. I made the necessary changes to the policy, hope no one minds. Regards So Why 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysop implementation

Based on the closing of the RfCs (after any necessary settling of questions about the close), I believe the following specific things need to be done to implement the change:

Someone should file a Bugzilla request to change the bureaucrat permissions, linking to the closed discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag.
Once the permission is enabled, a posting should be made to meta:Stewards' noticeboard to let the stewards know this has been done. (Note: This should only be done once the permission is actually active, because the stewards are likely to begin referring desysop requests here once they are notified.)
Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats should be edited to add the policies approved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy.
Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators and Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Voluntary removal should be edited for consistency with the change to the bureaucrat policy.
A request should be made to the Arbitration Committee to update Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions for consistency with the change to the bureaucrat policy.
meta:Bureaucrat#Removing access should be updated to include en-wiki.
User:Rd232 should be the first admin desysopped locally per his prior request above.
~~Crats should begin desysopping every admin they don't like in a mad orgy of permission removal.~~

I think that's everything, but feel free to add or redact as appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30250 Chzz ► 02:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bugzilla actually, since it was previously requested in 2009. Regards So Why 08:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

My only additional step might be talk pages notices to the existing crats once the new change is switched on. Just an extra "BE CAREFUL" for crats who may not be watching/reading this page and see they have a new button to click. MBisanz 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories: