Misplaced Pages

:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:56, 5 April 2007 editTaxman (talk | contribs)14,708 edits →RfA extension request: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cla68 extended← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:35, 25 December 2024 edit undoTbhotch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers312,362 edits Non-protected page 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Notices of interest to bureaucrats}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5 |counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(5d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/archive%(counter)d
|algo = old(7d)
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Header}} |archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- Header section, please do not change or move this -->
<br style="clear:both;"> {{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">


__TOC__
== Would a crat be willing to be the "trusted user" in a reverse RFA? ==


== Removal of Admin rights request (BozMo) ==
] says that stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions for removal of access. They want a "trusted person" on the local wiki to inform them, with a summary of the results of the discussion. If we were to make an RFA on someone who already has sysop access, and the RFA showed a consensus to overturn the sysopping, would any crat be willing to be the "trusted user" and make the request to a steward? It seems to me that a crat ought to be in the trusted user role, since we already trust crats to promote in the first place. Anyone willing to do this, or would you see it as an undesirable expansion of crat authority? ] ] 18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{rfplinks|BozMo}}
*Decisions to desysop someone lie, on en.wikipedia, with ArbCom. They do not lie with our local bureaucrats or with stewards (except, in the latter case, in cases of emergencies). --] 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
**But, they ''would'', if a crat was willing to ask for it and had community consensus to back it up. Hence, me being curious whether a crat would be willing to do so. ] ] 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) I am unlikely in the next year (until I retire Jan 2026) to be able to put much time into this project so would be happy to be de-sysoped. Thanks ] ] 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
***But they wouldn't, since currently the only body given that authority at en.wikipedia is ArbCom. Bureaucrats can not take on the role by community consensus without ArbCom blessing it. --] 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you are trying to take a more general policy established at Meta and apply it to the English Wiki which has its own process called ARBCOM. Your question is hypothetical because it presumes that a consensus could be built via "reverse RFA". The problem with this hypothetical is that it presumes the consensus could be foremed without a massive vote against the process of "reverse RFA" itself. Many editors would oppose the "reverse RFA" on the grounds that it was "out of process".


:Thank you for your service. I'll remove the bit now. Do you have any advanced rights that you'd like to retain? '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 22:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If you really want to do this, you need to make a proposal out of the "reverse RFA" process that you have in mind, get consensus for that proposal and only then worry about whether or not there will be a bureaucrat that would participate. If you're looking for a b'crat to give you a generic "yes, I would participate in that process" type answer, I suspect that you would really need to spell out how the "reverse RFA" process would work before you could get an answer.
::{{replyto|BozMo}} Indeed, thanks for your service both as an admin and as an editor; we've only met briefly on this project, but I remember your editing here and had very good impressions of it. There's one thing I think it's worth noting though: you won't be able to get your admin status back without an RFA because your last logged admin action was more than five years ago, in ], after ]. ] (]) 09:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== +bot for ] (userspace only bot) ==
Even then, I suspect that most if not all bureaucrats would want to see that the new process was based on consensus, not something you thought of at school one day (oh, sorry, that means something else, doesn't it).


Per the consensus established at ] here: ], my bot ] is authorized to edit within it's userspace making edits to ] (a BRFA is not required per ]).
--] 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I've tested for only a couple edits and can confirm it is working fully correctly, identifying the "egress" IPs of VPNgate (see discussion on VPT for what this means and why a bot is needed) and logging them in the userspace page - identifying ones used in past by MAB (59.129.113.197) and concerningly some unblocked ones (126.126.190.85, 222.98.171.131) in only a 7 IP sweep.
:Well, sure, I expect all manner of objections along those grounds. We already know no such thing will happen. But, who better than a bureaucrat to cut through bureaucratic paralysis? :-) ] ] 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Can it please get flagged with the bot perm, as currently it's running into very low rate limits preventing it from functioning correctly (as seen by the very few IPs its been allowed to add to the list)?
::The closest thing here to a reverse RFA is ]. ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]</small></sup> 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:While we do have an existing process, consensus can outweigh process. Requiring Arbcom to do this does not appear to be a ], so a clear consensus could change the policy here pertaining to administrators (it is afterall "no big deal"), but the way to do that is not via a test case, but by using the policy process. Recent debates (such as the ones over RFA Reform) have made it pretty clear that the administrator status policy is unlikely ready to change. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:While BRFA is not required for userspace-only bots, it's better to file it anyway if you want a bot flag. – ] (]) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* A "trial by fire" of this nature would have two problems: the sensitivity of the issue at hand itself, and additionally, the opposition of users to using a different method to desysop a user. We can remember ], and how the community ''loudly'' opposed intermingling one process with another. I'm not sure the same would not happen here. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::Okay, thank you! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*The problem is this: if there is a recent major incident that calls the trust of some admin into question, then the atmosphere becomes too heated to discuss a community deop process, because people on both sides will believe the other side to be biased and this will heat a lot of tempers. If there is ''not'' a recent major incident of that sort, then there's nobody to test the system on. So we have no feasible way of implementing this suggestion. ] 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}} per above, bots that needs flags need to go to ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures ==
::Indeed, without a change in policy, we cannot hold a "reverse RfA" and then ask a Steward to desysop based on that. Current policy on the English-language Misplaced Pages is that desysopping only happens in very specific circumstances &mdash; and in the case of involuntary desysopping due to inappropriate behavior, current policies establishes that it takes a decision by the ArbCom for it to happen. A policy change would be required beforehand if something like this were to be done.<br>However, I would note something that has been upheld even by Jimbo himself: this kind of procedure, given the current state of affairs around here, could be detrimental to the role of Administrator. If all it were to take for a !vote to be held on removing someone's adminship, and usually in a badly charged environment, as noted by Radiant, were to be for someone to cry "witch!" then administrators would have a very difficult time making the more difficult decisions, and taking actions that are certain to annoy, or even anger, certain people. We should not force admins to chose between doing their job and keeping their job. ] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::: In addition to that, such a process would quickly degenerate into the return of ], which never were a good idea to begin with. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


There is currently a ] which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. It may not be ''traditional'', but I'd rather see the crats doing the whole job than half of it. Don't we trust them this far? ] ] 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


:I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) ] (]) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== "User X is an admin" ==
::Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met.
::Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. ] (]/]) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. ] (]) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --]'']''] 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


::::::{{ping|Primefac}} . ] (]) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This is an odd, yet very common, edit summary used when promoting new admins. While it could be intended to mean that in their heart of hearts they were admin-material all along, or that +sysop is theoretically outside ] from a constitutional standpoint, it would make more sense to use "User X is ''now'' an admin" or somesuch. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. ] (]/]) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, I always thought that as well... ''']''' ] 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::Being told I was now an administrator with the words "Newyorkbrad is an admin" didn't bother me. :) Although I would have spelled out "administrator" to mark the full solmenity of the occasion. :) Seriously, I've noticed that individual 'crats have different formulas but I don't know that it matters very much. ] 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think the edit summary on promotion matters very much. I mean, they could say "Enjoy the chains of hell" and it really wouldn't change much about adminship itself, or the +sysop flag in the b-crat log. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup>&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</em>
::::I'm glad I swallowed before reading your "Enjoy the chains of hell" comment. (^_^) ···]<sup>] · <small>] <font color="darkblue">to</font> ]]</small></sup> 03:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was wondering if anyone would think it was as witty as I did. <span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup>&nbsp;<em style="font-size:10px;">06:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)</em>
::::If I ever become a 'crat, I think I will make that my standard promotion text. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


== Resysop request (Daniel) ==
::::It could reasonably be interpreted to mean "User X is ''already'' an admin, no reason to nominate him, delisting". —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I frequently interpreted it that way before I was informed otherwise. -- '']']'' 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::What about changing it to "User X has been promoted to admin"? --] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>] </sub></small> 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Promoted isn't politicially correct these days :P ''']''' ] 00:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


*{{rfplinks|Daniel}}
It could be interpreted as meaning they are already an admin by the time the crat gets there because the crat doesn't make the decision, they just recognise it and implement it in the software, so you become an admin as soon as your RfA reaches consensus. --] 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per ], upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (], ).
== Usurpations - minor change in eligibility ==


Original desysop request ] in the BN archives for ease of reference.
I plan to deny any usurpation request that intend to take over an account that was created less than six months ago. Let me know if there is consensus for the move. ] ] 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks,<br>] (]) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. It's a sensitive move, given that people sometimes create accounts but then only start using them after a period of time. ] 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And now I know why you need time, but are we talking about the target account, the one requesting or both? ] <small>(], ], <span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small> 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::An early Welcome Back, ]! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::<small>I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, ] (]) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
{{done}}


Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The target account. The new user log must show that it was created (and never used, which is verified in ''Special:Contributions'') at least 6 months prior to the posting of the usurpation request. The age of the requester's account is not concerned here. ] 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Does the "no edit" clause preclude any other exceptions, such as consent? ] <small>(], ], <span class="plainlinks"></span>)</small> 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::If you have their consent, then there is no need for usurption. They can request a new name themselves, and then the other person can be renamed to their old name. --] 13:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Unfair early closing of my RfA ==

I wish to complain in the strongest terms. I have just received a message from ] that he or she has closed ] early as "it does not enjoy the support of the community". Well, I was gaining support votes daily; people were expressing their confidence in me as a candidate all the time. Even if it was doomed to fail, I would have appreciated it running to full term to allow ''the community'' to express their feelings in full. I request that my RfA be re-opened and be allowed to run for the three remaining days it had to go, going down in flames if need be, but going down in flames ''fairly''. This is unfair. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 10:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: in Nichalp says it was "a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth". Well, the people writing in my support clearly didn't think so. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, Let me clarify, I'm a he. :) Please do not twist my words. I made a generalised statememt: ''a clearly failing RFA'' not ''your RFA'' is a waste of time and bandwidth. Regards, ] ] 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::And by applying that phrase <s>in your notification that you were closing his early</s> on someone else's talk page, you tarred it with that brush. I can't believe that you would not understand that, Nichalp. -- '']']'' 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I can't see any difference. The RFA was always failing. (oppose > support) ] ] 12:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::''I can't see any difference.'' - Yes, that much is clear. -- '']']'' 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:It did not have a reasonable chance of success. Promotion of admins is the only thing that RfA is for. Remember, articles are what we are here for, and continuing the RfA would not have helped in improving articles. We appreciate your desire to help, and I'm sorry you wished the RfA to continue, but it wasn't helping the project. If your desire is to help the project, I would suppose you could come to see that. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::''"it wasn't helping the project"'' - would it have ''hurt'' the project to let it continue for three days more? I was ''more'' than happy to accept a fair defeat, but you've taken that away and left me with a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth, and sharply damaged my faith in the process to boot. Well done. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes. It and this debate are taking resources away from articles. That should always be minimized. Again, sorry you're upset, but it's your choice to let it leave a nasty, bitter taste in your mouth. Also, I didn't do anything but agree. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I think you greatly exaggerate the extent of the resources involved. And no, it's not my choice. I chose to participate in the process and accept the outcome of a community-led process. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with the withdrawal. It was obvious that it would be contested, but that's what 'crats are supposed to do, right - make tough decisions? Anyway, though I sympathize with certain aspects of your complaints, continuing it would be ] more than anything else. ] (], ]) 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

:RfA isn't to see how many people support you. It's to see whether ''enough'' people support you for you to become an admin. Clearly that wasn't going to happen, so leaving this open is simply wasting people's time in your attempt to prove some ] about RfA. Please use ] instead of misusing RfA like this. Nichalp did the right thing. ]] 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::Even that no, it isn't a ] issue, and no, ] won't help. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::David Gerard is not a Foundation staff member. ] 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Honestly? I don't think it had a chance in hell of passing (and had I participated in it, I would have !voted "Oppose"). Your attitude about the entire situation strikes me, a complete outsider to the whole thing, as a very ] issue, to be perfectly honest (hell, even one of your supporters told you to ditch the chip on your shoulder).<br />I don't think it was particularly horrible thing to leave it open, but I don't think it served much purpose, either; basically, I think you need to just accept the fact that you didn't have community support (regardless of what a Foundation staff member's opinion is).<br />If you ''really'' want to show up all those who !voted oppose, I'd suggest dropping this and '''concentrate on improving the encyclopedia'''; your next RfA will then be able to pass on your actual merits, rather than people admiring your guts in not answering questions. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
::You are misrepresenting both what I have been saying and what actually happened. For the former, where have I ever said that I did have overall community support? To repeat myself, I would have been more than happy for it to end as a failed RfA. For the latter, for your information, I do nothing but attempt to improve the encyclopedia, day in and day out. That is precisely why I ran at RfA in the first place. Will it ''"show up all those who !voted oppose"''? Of course not. That implies that the oppose votes were because I do not improve the encyclopedia, which is not the case. Anyway, I am here to work on the encyclopedia, not play games and try to "show up" people; it disappoints me that a bureaucrat would make such a suggestion. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
:::First and foremost, I'm not a bureaucrat; I'm merely an administrator (while I'd like to run a successful RfB at some point, I'm not convinced that now is the time). Just want to make that abundantly clear so that my opinion doesn't hold more weight or authority than it should (incidentally, it shouldn't hold any more or less than any other editor; admins and 'crats aren't above other editors, necessarily; they merely have access to additional tools, which is both a blessing and a curse...).
:::I'm not suggesting that people were opposing you because you don't do any encyclopedia building. What I'm saying is that if you actually work on the project for a substantial period of time, there will be all the fewer reasons to oppose you (if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to explain my hypothetical opposition to your RfA on your talk page; here is not the place for a largely unrelated matter). I also wasn't suggesting that your edits be for the ''express'' purpose of "showing up" people; it was more of a statement of what behavior modifications I think you need to make if you earnestly want to run a successful RfA.
:::Also, if you're wondering why people think you're being pointed about the whole thing, it might have to do with your "RfA has decayed into a gabbling clique of process junkies who actually serve to damage the project by impeding the progress of numerous perfectly reasonable editors" statement.
:::However, this is quickly degenerating into a little back-and-forth between the two of us, I'll again say that, if you want to continue this conversation, let's do it elsewhere; your talk page or mine, I'm game for either. :) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== Get rid of tallies on RfA's ==

Please participate in ]. It's a minor change to the template, but many people will be surprised at it. Thanks. ] (]) 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

== RFC-style RFA ==

I'd raise this at ] but I thought it counter-productive. Given that the task of the bureaucrat is to determine whether there exists consensus to promote, the actual process by which consensus is divined is secondary, if not tertiary, so long as the process is open, public, and well-attended. That being said, if confronted by a Request for Adminship organized as a Request for Comment instead of the standard thinly-veiled vote, would a bureaucrat be willing to evaluate said request? In short, are the bureaucrats open to other paths? I'm not suggesting that this constitutes a change in policy--far from it. It's just a process tweak, really. ] ] 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

==RfA extension request==
Would it be possible for ] to be extended? There was a serious concern a few months ago that Cla68 was either a sockpuppet of banned ] (a very abusive sockpuppet and stalker) or was helping him. My recollection is that there was no technical evidence that Cla was Wordbomb, but he definitely seemed to be helping him, and some of his edits indicate that they're based in the same area. I only just noticed the nom, and I've left a comment with more details, but it's due to close at 12:18 today. I would like to give Cla time to respond, and some of the supporters time to look at the new information. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:Consider it extended for 24 hours. New information has come up within 3 hours of the expected closing time that other contributors to the RfA have apparently not been aware of. Contributors should have time to evaluate it. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:35, 25 December 2024

Notices of interest to bureaucrats

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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 7 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 13
    Approved BRFAs 0
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    It is 01:35:41 on December 26, 2024, according to the server's time and date.


    Removal of Admin rights request (BozMo)

    BozMo (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

    I am unlikely in the next year (until I retire Jan 2026) to be able to put much time into this project so would be happy to be de-sysoped. Thanks BozMo talk 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for your service. I'll remove the bit now. Do you have any advanced rights that you'd like to retain? Lee Vilenski 22:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @BozMo: Indeed, thanks for your service both as an admin and as an editor; we've only met briefly on this project, but I remember your editing here and had very good impressions of it. There's one thing I think it's worth noting though: you won't be able to get your admin status back without an RFA because your last logged admin action was more than five years ago, in December 2013, after this rule change. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    +bot for User:MolecularBot (userspace only bot)

    Per the consensus established at WP:VPT here: WP:VPT#VPNgate blocking bot, my bot User:MolecularBot is authorized to edit within it's userspace making edits to User:MolecularBot/IPData.json (a BRFA is not required per WP:EXEMPTBOT).

    I've tested for only a couple edits and can confirm it is working fully correctly, identifying the "egress" IPs of VPNgate (see discussion on VPT for what this means and why a bot is needed) and logging them in the userspace page - identifying ones used in past by MAB (59.129.113.197) and concerningly some unblocked ones (126.126.190.85, 222.98.171.131) in only a 7 IP sweep.

    Can it please get flagged with the bot perm, as currently it's running into very low rate limits preventing it from functioning correctly (as seen by the very few IPs its been allowed to add to the list)?

    Thank you. :) MolecularPilot 05:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    While BRFA is not required for userspace-only bots, it's better to file it anyway if you want a bot flag. – SD0001 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, thank you! :) MolecularPilot 06:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
     Not done per above, bots that needs flags need to go to WP:BRFA. — xaosflux 10:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures

    There is currently a live RfA which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not a crat but I un-transcluded it and left notices at various places. I know it's overstepping but I felt this was a very urgent situation since it may be an unauthorized RFA and the voters didn't seem to notice/care. (And the instructions are clear about acceptance before transclusion.) Levivich (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing that. We can't have that. Maybe we need to change the RfA Template so it stops transcluding being possible without a parameter being met.
    Happy for the transclusion to be reverted again when it is signed. Lee Vilenski 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should the !votes be blanked? Given the answers to the three questions, I would presume Areaseven was not ready for this to be live. I think that it would be unfair to retain !votes based on incomplete information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have rolled back the nomination to the point pre-submission. If and when Areaseven is ready to run, they can accept the nomination and proceed as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah. Shame about the casual personal attack thrown in of course: the wholly unnecessary speculation as to the motives of those who voted. --SerialNumber54129 21:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Primefac: They've accepted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've asked them to reconsider on their talk page, where they received bad advice to immediately accept after Levivich removed the transclusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Resysop request (Daniel)

    Hi Bureaucrats, requesting return of the admin tools which I gave up in October. Was originally planning on waiting until the new year, but per WP:ACE2024, upholding my timeline commitment of requesting back in late December instead (statement, comment).

    Original desysop request here in the BN archives for ease of reference.

    Thanks,
    Daniel (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — xaosflux 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    An early Welcome Back, Daniel! I look forward to seeing you at AFDLand should you want to spend some time there again. Liz 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I hope you also look forward to seeing him on the ArbCom mailing list where I expect you two will run into each other frequently... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

     Done

    Welcome back. I have restored your admin rights. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: