Wikivoyage talk:Bureaucrats

Archived discussions /Archive 2007-2023 View archive links

Inactive bureaucrats 2024/10

It just dawned upon me that we've never done an inactivity check for bureaucrats this year, which was meant to happen last month.

The good-to-go list:

• Ikan Kekek (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-10-05; last admin or bureaucrat action on 2024-10-02)
• SHB2000 (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-10-05; last admin or bureaucrat action on 2024-10-05)
• ThunderingTyphoons! (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-09-27; last admin or bureaucrat action on 2024-10-06) (updated)

Only user who meets the inactivity criteria is:

• LtPowers (talk · contribs) (last edit on 2024-09-03; did not make admin or bureaucrat actions within the last year)

Based on this, I'll send out a notice to both LtPowers and ThunderingTyphoons! – with Powers' deadline being 14 days from now (2024-10-19) and ThunderingTyphoons!'s deadline being 14 days from their last admin action (2024-11-06). I thank both of you for their service and wish them all the best for your futures.

--SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

LtPowers has now had their bureaucrat perms removed; thanks to him for his service. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Bureaucrat status is granted per language version. Sometimes, a language version will only have one bureaucrat, who must be an administrator in good standing. Stewards can handle requests for languages that do not have a bureaucrat."

I don't think this sentence is relevant for us anymore since SUL and most new bureaucrats on small wikis have to meet m:MVR. Any objections to removing this? //shb (t | c | m) 10:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

What's SUL? But I agree that it's not relevant, because there are bureaucrats on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I think it stands for single-user login (though I may be wrong – I don't know what the abbreviation stands for as I've never seen it being spelled in full, but generally what Special:CentralAuth is). Anyway, I'll remove it. //shb (t | c | m) 10:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

PSA: bureaucrats can now verify if a user has 2FA enabled

Swept in from the pub

(cc @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:) Special:VerifyOATHForUser now exists for bureaucrats as well. There isn't much of a use case, but it is a WMF requirement that all interface admins have 2FA enabled; this new change means that were any new IAs to be appointed, you can actually check instead of relying on word of mouth. //shb (t | c | m) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Clause for stewards to act

cc @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:...given the low number of bureaucrats on this site, I'd like to add a clause that explicitly permits stewards to act if all bureaucrats on this site (which I suppose is just me and tt! at the moment).

If there are no active bureaucrats within the last 3 days, stewards may act as local bureaucrats if needed. Stewards are asked to follow local practice rather than following MVR (the guideline for wikis without bureaucrats). Additionally, stewards are asked to self-assign temporary bureaucrat permissions to assign or remove such permissions (except in the case of an emergency desysop) and use Special:UserRights locally rather than using UserRights on Meta – this ensures that the rights are logged locally.

I don't think this is at all a controversial addition. We do need more bureaucrats as well...but even then, I don't think it hurts to have this backup clause that hopefully will never actually need to be used. //shb (t | c | m) 00:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, this is a good suggestion, not least because it's taken me three days to get around to reading and replying. However, I think there should be a community discussion, rather than something decided between us three. Will post an RFC.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't commented because I agree that it's non-controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It should be, for sure; my pings to you both were mainly because such a policy probably at the very least also requires bureaucrat support and community input, but I've more or less come to accept with terms that this wiki doesn't have many more casual users into the more backend project side of things than I'd like (which is completely fine, but it does mean such discussions will have limited input). //shb (t | c | m) 09:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I posted the RFC yesterday, so if there's no feedback by Saturday, we can call it a done deal. Is there a need to notify the stewards group on Meta, or is it enough just to change the wording locally? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just the local change is fine, but I'll let other stewards know internally. //shb (t | c | m) 05:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Given the lack of objections, done. //shb (t | c | m) 07:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Grand.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)