Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

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 7 days may be automatically archived by .

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	16
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 20:45:17 on November 30, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

-sysop (Dennis Brown)

Dennis Brown (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 · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Please remove my admin bit for the time being. I don't need any other advance privileges at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you for your service. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dennis for your years of diligent competence in service to our mission. BusterD (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your service and hope you will get back soon. Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. jp×g 🗯️ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, you've been an inspiration to me and to this project for nearly 2 decades. Thank you so much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Elections - would bureaucrats be willing to take on role of election administrators?

Hi folks - this is a pretty straightforward question. After the success of the recent administrator elections, I think it's pretty clear that the community liked this big change in how we select administrators. Most commentary about it was positive. It's reasonable to think that most candidates in the future will opt to participate in elections rather than the regular RFA process, given the choice. Thus, bureaucrats are unlikely to have to make many decisions about which candidates pass or fail at RFA. Would bureaucrats be willing to take on the role of election administrators for these elections in the future? The work isn't that difficult and requires a minimum of technical know-how and a willingness to communicate with the WMF staff who manage SecurePoll instances. (While comments from community members are welcome, I'd really like to see responses from the bureaucrats.) Risker (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have all the other components of how elections are going to technically and procedurally (e.g. who will scrutineer) been resolved yet? In general the election admins just need to make sure the right names are on the ballot, and make decisions about errors (such as someone missing from the electoral roll). The most complicated administrative component has been building and validating a whitelist of eligible votes - this can be complex if it will be required. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So long as we can address any issues, I don't mind personally being involved. I do think that the crat role should be linked with admin promotion in whatever form that takes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the de facto election administrator in the last election. I received positive feedback. I think replacing me with the bureaucrats needs further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/RFC workshop#Supervising the election.

I also think the assumption that AELECT will replace RFA is a bit premature. Each process has pros and cons. For example with RFA you can do it whenever, it's not dependent upon software (SecurePoll) or busy partner groups (WMF T&S, scrutineers, etc.), it is extremely transparent so gets the candidate blunt but actionable feedback, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent of this question is to determine whether the 'crats would be willing to take on the role if requested. If they aren't then there is little point in presenting that option in the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Thryduulf. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean specifically who is eligible to receive the electionadmin right, as discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 214 § Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right, in order to setup and configure SecurePoll-based polls? I think the community still needs to discuss this further (along with who should gain access to personal identifiable information, in cases where polls are configured to collect it). If you mean who helps manage the elections, I think that can continue to be done by volunteers, as is done for the arbitration committee elections. isaacl (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading, this electionadmin right appears to be pretty adjacent to the checkuser right, which requires self-identifying to the WMF. Can someone confirm if the electionadmin right requires the same? If so, I will, unfortunately, have to decline to participate in that role. Useight (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note unlike several years ago, you no longer need to send any copies of identify documents to WMF. GZWDer (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, *if* it is necessary for electionadmins to "identify", the process is to sign a confidentiality agreement that does not need to link to the user's real-world identity. (You'll have to click through on the links, it's stored on Foundation Wiki now.) Nobody has to self-identify to the WMF, with the exception of prospective WMF Board of Trustees members. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the corresponding comment right now, but my understanding is that it's currently a bug that the electionadmin right provides access to personal identifiable information (PII), and there's a Phabricator ticket open to fix the bug. If that's fixed, just the user rights assigned to scrutineers would provide access to PII. isaacl (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a little confusing because "election admin" could refer to something similar to WP:ACE's "electoral commission", or it could also refer to SecurePoll scrutineers (the "electionadmin" MediaWiki permission group), and it is unclear which Risker was referring to. I assumed the former, but Useight and others may be assuming the latter.

The Phab ticket to separate editing elections from scrutineering (seeing private data) is phab:T377531. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I mean handling the background work of the election: set-up, ensuring timely completion of tasks, verifying eligibility; the technical end of things. Scrutineering is a separate issue; much as I trust bureaucrats, I know that is probably a lot further from their bailiwick than would make sense given that 'crats are chosen for consensus-interpretation rather than Checkuser-like skills. I'll note in passing that it is possible to have a local instance of SecurePoll, which would largely take the WMF staffing out of the picture. I'm not advocating for that at this time. Risker (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If bureaucrats want to volunteer (as some do for the arbitration committee elections), that's great! Based on experience so far, though, I don't feel that limiting the co-ordination tasks to just bureaucrats is needed. (Note the bureaucrats were asked about being involved with the trial run.) isaacl (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that change gerrit:1083337 has been merged. Thus if I understand correctly, PII is no longer being shown to users with the electionadmin right. (I thought it had been fixed already but wasn't sure.) isaacl (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to explain, but that patch does not resolve the ticket. It is just a small step towards that ticket. There are also 2 other pending patches, and more patches after these 3 will be needed to finish the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood. I was only noting that the specific concern raised by Useight is not a factor for the electionadmin right. isaacl (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"electionadmin" is not a right, it is a group. Earlier, being a member of the group enabled seeing PII. This has been fixed. SecurePoll still has this weird concept of allowing other actions on virtue of group membership, as opposed to the rest of MediaWiki in which they're allowed through possession of rights (which in turn comes from group membership). As Novem says, this makes things difficult to explain, but it's being fixed through the other two patches. – SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I skimmed the tickets so read about that work item. My apologies for getting the specific distinctions wrong; I default to thinking about permissions in terms of user rights, not user groups. isaacl (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years the 'crat role has been expanded and contracted by the community and the WMF as the needs of the project have changed, so if the community thinks bureaucrats would be suitable for this new role, I’m sure at least some of us, myself included, would be happy to help out in that way as time allows. 28bytes (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there are two questions here: are the 'crats willing to do this, and does the community want/need them to do it? I'm not sure where I land on that second one but it needs to be part of the conversation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Risker's response to me upthread, this discussion is only about the first of your questions. The community doesn't need the 'crats to do this (in the technical sense at least), hence question 2 is dependent on the answer to question 1. If the 'crats are willing to do this, then whether the community want them two will be asked (and hopefully answered) in the forthcoming RFC - see Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/RFC workshop#Supervising the election. Thryduulf (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still a gap of "what are the duties of the electionadmin". There are many open RFC's and tech tickets right now, so what even the near-term end state is still ambiguous. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]