Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

I have just closed the Interface Administrator RfC, and now that a process exists, because the new process is less demanding than the temporary one implemented by Xaosflux, I propose all users that have passed Xaosflux's IntAdmin process should be converted to full permanent ones. Thoughts? All current IntAdmins can be found here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the list myself, but would rather not use the made-up process to start this, and just do a standard 48 hour hold here to make it a "clean" process. (If you are on the list and don't want this you may certainly remove yourself from the list!). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in regards to any complaints of "you need to actually ask for it", I do indeed want to continue to be able to use this. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I don't think pings were issued when you created the list below, if that was your intention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel I should point out that we have passed 72 hours. Would it be possible for a crat to close this?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop gap user list

• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MSGJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Oshwah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Pharos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ragesoss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• TheDJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Discuss

• support no issues and they are clear passed previous 96 standard waiting Hhkohh (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Anyone who passed the previous requirements definitely meets the new requirements. Regards SoWhy 07:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I see no reason why not. Vanamonde (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose. Why have these names been mass added? The new procedure says people should nominate themselves with a 48 hour holding period, and with a definite need in mind. If each of these users individually requests the bit I can support, but the whole point of this is to reduce our attack surface, and mass adding people who have not requested it is anathema to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Each user did request access before process was established. This is just formalizing/finalizing these requests. Also bear in mind the final decision rests with the bureaucrats.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is the new process now. The rules (which I believe are based on your own close, Cyberpower), say Admin makes a request, with a rationale, at the bureaucrats’ noticeboard, to request interface administrator access. That has not happened here. Like I say, if each of the above names makes such a request, I would be happy to support, but for now they haven't done so, and having previously done so isn't proof they still wish to have access. It's a grave shame if we can't get the new process right even on the first day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  But they made such a request at the old venue with stricter requirements. It's not like they got it without any process. Also, we didn't mass-desysop editors Jimbo had given the rights to before RFA was established, did we? That's how grandfathering works. Plus, and this comes from someone who has been repeatedly accused of being too bureaucratic (funnily enough at my own failed request to become a bureaucrat), requiring these editors to follow the new less strict process after already passing the strict process seems to be following rules for the sake of following rules. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Rationale doesn't imply the requirement of stating an indication of need, as that proposal was turned down. But needless to say, every user who has gone through the process of gaining 6 months access, undoubtedly would have handed the bit in if they weren't interested in retaining it. But to each their own. I'll let those users speak for themselves.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We can basically oppose for any reason since the final decision rests with the reviewing bureaucrat. So when you say Rationale doesn't imply the requirement of stating an indication of need, as that proposal was turned down, that doesn't mean a whole lot. (We know what these person's needs are, as Xaosflux already got that out of them.) --Izno (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You can. The whole point of the discussion is to bring possible security issues or competence issues to light for the bureaucrat to decide on. As admins already have a higher level of trust, asking for perms in an RfA style manner is pointless, as this perm is strictly a letter of security. That’s at least the impression I got at the RFC I closed.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are concerned about my account security, then let me state that I have both a super long password and 2FA enabled on my account. I know that’s not the only way to gain access to an account, but I’ve always taken precautions to secure access to my account since before I became an admin.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand why this is so difficult. If these users really want the bit, it is a matter of two minutes or less to put together a request on this page, saying why they want it, and I encourage them to do so now. You can also do so, Cyberpower and I'll support you. This mass adding is wrong though, including for the geonotice reasons that Izno mentions below, where the privelege isn't really needed. I continue to oppose this request, and advise the crats not to appoint anyone who hasn't nominated themselves, as the procedure requires. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And if that's what the crats want, then so be it, that's what the crats will get. I respect your input. I just feel following process for the sake of process is, even if I just did establish it, a bit redundant given these listed users went through a more stringent process when they requested it initially.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Despite my user-right saying "bureaucrat", I cannot stand process for the sake of process. Personally, I would be happy to accept this grandfathering in, if community consensus is towards that. Worm^TT(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems perfectly reasonable to convert these to permanent. Based on their success at the more stringent process, no one would object if they did it the Vogon way, so let's not make them do it the Vogon way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Makes sense., no problems with the users. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Besides the procedural concern, I'll oppose indefinite extension for the editors above who requested the tools solely for the purpose of Geonotices, or predominantly for Geonotices (to wit, that's Cyberpower, Deryck, and Pharos), out of the "decrease the attack surface" concern and the fact we should sooner-rather-than-later have a working alternative that MusikAnimal will be hacking on soonly. I'm also concerned about Ritchie per MusikAnimal's oppose at his temporary IAdmin request thread. --Izno (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seeing as they have already satisfied a more stringent process than the new one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - they were elected by the community less than a month ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no reason not to.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 12:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - why not? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – should be a fairly trivial matter. Mz7 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  contribs) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I didn't mind a stopgap list when we had no procedure. Now, editors need to follow the rules and abide the procedure they helped create. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crat action?

Hi 'crats, this has been open far longer than the new 48hr requirement; I'm very very involved so don't want to get involved with closure - but would like to know if there is going to be action or an actual denial here. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]