Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:58, 29 October 2009 editBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits →BAG and bot flags -request for explanation for reasoning for this bot's flag ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 50) (bot
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}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 18		\|counter = 50
			\|minthreadsleft = 0
⚫	\|algo = old(5d)
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
⚫	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
		⚫	\|algo = old(7d)
	}}{{/Header}}
		⚫	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	<!-- Header section, please do not change or move this --><br style="clear:both;">
			}}</noinclude>
			{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">

			__TOC__
	== ]: admin rights ==

			== RfA with no candidate acceptance or required disclosures ==
	Please remove my admin rights until further notice. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
	: for the stewards to take care of. Sorry to see you go. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Not gone yet. – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::If a bureaucrat could make a comment to appease B.hotep's concern's, I am sure he would appreciate it. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::{{done}} ] (]) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

			There is currently a ] which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Kww 3 suggestion ==

			: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)
	Hope you guys don't mind me posting here. I have made a suggestion here which you might want to consider. No idea what support it will get over there, but it is something you could consider to move this along. Cheers. ]] 16:18, 18 October 2009 (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.
	:LC is proposing that we re-start the nomination, let it run for around 3 days, and not allow any discussion, just votes. I tend to favor more rather than less discussion in general. - Dank (]) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
			::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)
	== Returning user ==
			:::::::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)

			== Resysop request (Daniel) ==
	I'm back, and I'd like my bit back, please - thanks. :) ] (]) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	*:{{done}}. Welcome back. -- ''']''' (]) 03:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
⚫	::Thanks~~. :)~~ ] (]) 04:05, 20 ~~October~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)

			*{{rfplinks\|Daniel}}
	== Removal of sysop status - Mattinbgn ==

			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 (], ).
	For the information of local bureaucrats, I have requested removal of my sysop status . Thanks, ]\<sup>]</sup> 03:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Noted, thank you for your contributions. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

			Original desysop request ] in the BN archives for ease of reference.
	== Notice given to KWW ==

		⚫	Thanks,<br>] (]) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I made to Andre's statement. I think this is what Andre meant, but it is '''critical''' that it be clear. -- ] (]) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
			:Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I think you're splitting hairs but I don't object to the clarification. ''']''' (]) 21:02, 20 October 2009 (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)
	==Arbitration Committee Elections 2009 - Invitation for Questions==
			:Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Preparations are ongoing for the ], which will be held in December. The first step in the process is generating a list of General Questions that will be submitted by template to all candidates in this year's election. Questions may be broad and philisophical in nature, or may deal with a specific incident or case from the past year (or prior). General questions may ''not'' deal with an individual candidate or candidates - All editors will have a chance to ask specific questions or one or more candidates directly, once we actually have candidates.

	The submission of questions is limited to editors eligible to vote in the election (You may use to check your eligibility.), but all editors will be invited to discuss the candidates, once we have candidates to discuss. '''Questions should be submitted at ].''' If you have additional questions or concerns regarding the question process, please ask ]. Thank you for participating. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::What does this have to do with crats?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps UltraExactZZ was under the impression that this is a major Misplaced Pages noticeboard that many users will have on their watchlists, and that it would be a good means of disseminating an important message. <font color="#FFB911">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Surely if one wants to achieve maximum global awareness for an internal Misplaced Pages election, the simplest method is to start a thread at Misplaced Pages Review? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::::True. It would also probably generate more interesting questions too. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	I have to say, having faced the inquisistion last year, that the idea of these questions (both group and individual ones) accumulating from now to 1 December (i.e. more than month!) sends a shiver down my spine. I wonder if we are putting off those who would make good arbitrators but don't have the stomach for answering such a volume of questions. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::I agree with you in principle, but it's to be noted that an ability to answer questions and justify views is critical to the role. In other words, the arbs need to have the stomach for it. —<strong>]</strong>] 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Arbcom is one of those things that unless you've actually been on it, you have no idea how bad it really is.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 10:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Is there any way to improve conditions? ] (]) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::Given that no matter what arbs/arbcom decides lots of users will howl at the moon, probably not--there are simply too many divergent views on how to handle any given situation, but it's not arbcom's job to make everyone happy, their job is to handle non-content cases that the community can't or hasn't been able to handle. Nonarbs simply do not understand how big the workload is either. It's enough to be a full time job, but it doesn't pay anyone's bills. Then throw in trying to get enough of the sitting arbs to argee on what to do, and I'm amazed anything gets done at all. AUSC and BASC were good moves, they took a lot of investigatory work off the arbs work load. Then consider arbs a top targets of trolls, banned users, outers, etc, and maybe you start to see the picture better. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	== BAG and bot flags -request for explanation for reasoning for this bot's flag ==
	:<small>Moved from ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</small>
	The Bureaucrats project page says, "In like fashion, Bureacrats are expected to exercise judgment ... in granting or removing bot flags on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group. ... They are expected to be capable judges of consensus, and are expected to explain the reasoning for their actions on request and in a civil manner."

	I would like to know the reasoning for granting CyberBot a flag in . I do not see any community consensus for this task. In fact, I can find a lack of community consensus for the task.

	Please elaborate. Thanks. --] (]) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Please stop forum shopping this has been explained to you before. this appeared to be a non-controversial issue filling in a template. ] 17:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:04, 26 December 2024

Notices of interest to bureaucrats

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 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	15
Approved BRFAs	0

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

It is 04:45:14 on December 29, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

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)

Daniel (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)

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Categories: