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 18:27, 10 September 2006 editRxS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,829 edits →Renewing my call to suspend RfA: alternative?← 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}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!-- Header section, please do not change or move this -->
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
<br style="clear:both;">
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 50
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
{{/Header}}<br style="clear:both;">


__TOC__
== Copied from ] - username change queue ==


== Removal of Admin rights request (BozMo) ==
The bureaucrat who usually does the username changes (] will be inactive on Misplaced Pages until the end of October (as per his user page), and there is a long list of Wikipedians awaiting name changes who seem to be getting increasingly rowdier. Is there possibly another free bureaucrat who can take over his duties until he gets back? ] 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (or, hopefully, ])
:{{rfplinks|BozMo}}
:The backlog is only two days, but still looks a bit long, so I decided to post this here. ] ] 13:35, 30 August 2006 (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)


: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)
::We don't have any one Bureaucrat who is reponsible alone for any particular duty, Nichalp just prefers to focus on username change. This waiting period in answering the requests is happening because we only have 4 Bureaucrats who are active on a regular basis, and two of them are temporarily inactive. Don't worry, Taxman and I will get around to answering all of the requests. We always try to answer requests as soon as possible, but a waiting period of 48 to 72 hours is not uncommon in those cases. Regards, ] 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
::{{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) ==
:::Actually Essjay did the lion's share by far, and he's not as active now. I started a thread on ] relating to reducing the number of allowed reasons to change a username to reduce administrative and server overhead. Please comment there. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


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 ]).
:I'm back from a lengthy holiday, and will be available to help with bureaucrat duties for the foreseeable future. &mdash; ] | ] 04:27, 4 September 2006 (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.
== Making it up as you go along ==


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)?
I don't recall approving bureaucrats to hand out arbitrary lengths of adminship service because they don't really know how to make the decision. Adminship has ''never'', ''ever'' been handed out for 8 weeks at a time as a result of an RfA. Did you actually tell anyone anywhere taht you planned to do this if they supported Carnildo? Or are you just making it up as you go along? You don't own RfA, you merely implement its decisions, and no part of its decision referred to two months. -] - ] 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
: I also object. I did not comment on ]; I can't recall having anything to do with this editor; so perhaps I'm neutral on him. I have been occasionally active on RfAs. This editor may be rehabilitated, a fine admin -- or not; I have no idea. I do see that the RfA was contentious and the tally borderline. My instinct in such matters is to err on the side of caution; I would invite the candidate to reapply in a few months and see if community sentiment changes. Guesstimating from the change since ], clear consensus may well form in favor -- then.
: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)
::Okay, thank you! :) ] <sup>]]</sup> 06:20, 19 December 2024 (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 ==
: I definitely ''don't'' like the precedent set by "temporary" adminship. Has this ever been done before? Has the community expressed any desire for this measure in general? Where does this door lead? B'crats are expected to make tough judgement decisions; it's routine. Is this a creative solution or a failure to make the call? Also, exactly under what circumstances and by what method will Carnildo's sysop privs "expire"? Who will make the decision to revoke or extend them? Sorry, but evaluating admin performance is ''not'' a b'crat function; it is ArbCom's or a steward's, if not the community's. ]] 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


There is currently a ] which does not have a signature accepting or perform required disclosures. Best, ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was not involved in the decision that led to Carnildo's resysopping, but to clarify: his adminship is not temporary exactly. It is under probation. This means that, after a given period of time (two months), the ], not the Bureaucrats, will review his record as an admin for this period of time and decide on whether or not to remove his admin bit again or let it stay. If the decision is made to remove his adminship again, a member of the ArbCom will post on ], at a forum called ], where a ] will take care of the request and remove the flag. ] 16:02, 5 September 2006 (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)
:::It's worth noting that RfA doesn't own bureaucrats either. Presumably they are empowered to take actions that in their best judgment are for the good of the project. ] ] 04:27, 6 September 2006 (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. '''] <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)
: There is no precedent for probationary adminship and I dislike to see it set by fiat. I object to the term "own"; it is an inappropriate straw man. RfA ''determines'' who will and who will not become an admin; b'crats are empowered only to implement community will -- not to paternalistically watch over the community and do what's best for us. If we want a probationary admin, we'll ask for one.
:::::::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) ==
: This is a very old, well-established principle: Power is divided between the rank-and-file on one hand and Jimbo and the Board on the other. ArbCom is a comparative novelty; power is expressly delegated to this body. Power is ''not'' delegated to admins or b'crats -- not in any way. These classes of users exist solely to implement community will.


*{{rfplinks|Daniel}}
: If there are any b'crats who don't agree with that last statement, please speak out clearly right now. ]] 11:32, 7 September 2006 (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 (], ).
I too am concerned about the Carnildo decision, and am reposting my comments here from ]. Discussion has also reached ] and ].


Original desysop request ] in the BN archives for ease of reference.
The role of bureaucrats is to gauge community consensus. ] says that bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community", ] says that bureaucrats "review the discussion to see whether there is a general consensus for promotion", and ], one of the three bureaucrats behind the decision to promote Carnildo, that "As a bureaucrat it is my job to determine consensus in RfAs." Yet the ] makes no mention of consensus, and only references community opinion to say that while many users oppose Carnildo's adminship, he is being promoted anyway.


Thanks,<br>] (]) 01:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The threshold for consensus was not met here. Although RfA is not a rigid vote, consensus tends to be gauged by percentage, with bureaucrats "generally held to a 75-80% discretionary zone", in Taxman's . Carnildo's RfA closed with 112 supports and 71 opposes, a 61% ratio. The true ratio may be even lower due to users (like and ) not bothering to oppose when they saw that the RfA was already well below the threshold for promotion.
:Seems fine, admin activity as recently as October this year. Standard 24-hour hold applies. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2024 (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)
There has arisen a dangerous misconception that when deciding whether to promote, bureaucrats are permitted to "weigh the arguments" or make arguments of their own at the expense of community consensus. Neither ] nor ] gives them such authority. Rather, it is the job of the ''community'' to make arguments and weigh each other's arguments during the discussion. The job of bureaucrats is strictly to gauge consensus. Of course, they cannot do so by mechanically counting supports and opposes, but must watch carefully for sockpuppets and other consensus-obscuring factors. And of course, bureaucrats are part of the community too, and in their role as community members, may participate in the discussion themselves. But in their role as bureaucrats, when deciding whether to promote, they are bound by the community's will.
:Thanks all. Looking forward to a busy 2025! Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to lacking consensus, this decision had other problems. First, although bureaucrats may participate in RfA discussions, it is best for impartiality that they not close discussions in which they have participated, unless the outcome is uncontroversial due to an obvious consensus or non-consensus. ], who supported the RfA, nonetheless holds "primary writing credit" for this very controversial decision. Second, transparency requires that bureaucrats discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion openly. Taxman pledged to do so when he became a bureaucrat, but now ] that with respect to the current decision, of which, as far as I know, not a peep was made prior to its surprise announcement, he "did different from what said would", a "mistake", in his words.

In short, the decision to promote Carnildo was made without transparency and without consensus. If the bureaucrats believed that "special consideration should be given to the extenuating circumstances of this case", they could have presented that view to the community and sought consensus in the ensuing discussion. Instead, they issued a highly irregular decision without public consultation. It is disappointing and worrying to see trusted users exhibit such disrespect for the community which granted them their positions, and I urge them to recant. ] 14:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
*I think what transpired is that Carnildo was put up for RfA by ]. Word rapidly reached the members of ArbCom, sparking a discussion on what to do. Three members of ArbCom that voted to have Carnildo's sysop powers removed subsequent to the pedophilia userbox war came out in support of the RfA in the first day. As the RfA's time period waned, it became obvious that the RfA would not pass. Discussion ensued between some bureaucrats and some members of ArbCom on what to do. A decision was made to promote Carnildo, and use the closing RfA as the vehicle for doing so. I could be wrong in some of the above; it's speculation.
*In my opinion, what should have happened is the RfA should have been allowed to fail. Subsequent to that, a case should have been submitted to ArbCom re-opening Carnildo's role in the pedophilia userbox war, to re-evaluate whether the desysopping should have been permanent, or temporarily suspended.
*What should happen now, and so far (to my knowledge) has not happened is a full accounting of exactly what transpired. This is a highly controversial case, and transparency is being demanded by a number of users. If the case can not be presented in a convincing way that the community can support, then it would seem there would be basis for overturning the decision. Mistakes can and do happen. In the least, some statement by the bureaucrats as to why this case should or should not be a precedent for future considerations and what impact this decision has on future (and some would ask for) past RfAs should be made.
*The bureaucrats didn't just make a controversial decision. They shattered the mold that RfA has held to for years. To date, this has been without satisfactory transparency or explanation. I am not going to say the bureaucrats made a mistake. I've been witholding personal judgement on that pending explanation by the bureaucrats. However, such explanation has not been forthcoming. This is...disappointing. --] 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

==Close withdrawn RfA==
It appears that ] has commented (just below his answers to questions, just above the !votes) that he's ready to withdraw his RfA and try again later. Close? ] 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:For future reference, yes, you can close out any RfA in which the candidate indicates their withdrawal, and add to ]. ] 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== ] flags needed ==

2 Bot request have been approved for bot flags, please see:
*] &
*]
::Thank you, — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I've taken care of the two. Cheers, ] 08:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Renewing my call to suspend RfA ==

A couple of months ago I called for the bureaucrats to suspend RfA. I'm renewing that call. I am asking all bureaucrats to refrain from promoting new admins until such time as the community develops a process for promoting admins that isn't broken. The current process is too capable of promoting unqualified candidates, excludes qualified candidates for thoroughly irrelevant reasons, and often generates hostility and bad blood. But as long as it functions at all, there's no incentive to change it. An agreement by the bureaucrats to suspend promotions would force the community to actually deal with the issue, instead of blithely ignoring it. The Sean Black and Carnildo RfAs are great examples.

At least give it some thought. Don't dismiss it out of hand, the way you did last time. ] (]) 08:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

: I '''strongly agree''' that RfA is broken and that it needs replacement. I '''strongly disagree''' that ''this'' is the place to propose turning it "off". B'crats are not given that latitude, sorry. I will surely entertain a proposal to overhaul RfA and I pledge to work with any serious proposal. I oppose any b'crat sit-down strike.

: I'll repeat: In regard to promotion, the sole job of b'crats is to implement community will -- not to determine, control, or correct it. ]] 13:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::And I disagree. Bureaucrats '''are''' given that latitude. They are expected to act in the best interest of the project; they are not mere automatons who exist only to promote people who meet certain numerical standards. ] (]) 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The role of bureaucrats is to gauge and implement community consensus. ] says that bureaucrats may grant administrator access "only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community" and ] says that bureaucrats "review the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for promotion". It is the job of the ''community'' to determine the best interest of the project by making arguments and weighing each other's arguments during the discussion. The job of bureaucrats is strictly to follow community consensus. Of course, they cannot do so by mechanically counting supports and opposes, but must watch carefully for sockpuppets and other consensus-obscuring factors. And of course, bureaucrats are part of the community too, and in their role as community members, may participate in the discussion themselves. But in their role as bureaucrats, when deciding whether to promote, they are bound by the community's will. ] 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: Not quite. Whatever our ''written'' policy may say, Bureaucrats may not, for instance, promote a clearly unsuitable administrator even if it's the community's will. ] applies to bureaucrats, too. --] 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: Let's also keep in mind that the sampling on RfA is not very reliably a "consensus" of the community. The largest RfA I've seen had some 175 votes. There are over 10,000 active editors on the English Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I think a sampling of less than 2% of the community can't really be characterized as a "consensus". I know that I don't participate in RfA not because I think it's unimportant or that I don't care, but because I find the toxicity of RfA sufficiently unpleasant that I don't want anything to do with it. My opinion is not counted because I find the process unpleasantly repulsive, not because I don't care. I wonder how many other editors are avoiding RfA because they find the process distasteful; I doubt I'm the only one. ] (]) 17:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

: I join Kelly in urging the bureaucrats to seriously consider suspending the process of making new administrators. An alternative to this would be for bureaucrats to routinely close out RFAs in a more conscientious manner, instead of just counting up sacks of me-toos from the RFA groupies. But I think that might require an expanded corps of bureaucrats to cope with the workload. --] 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::What makes you think bureaucrats are not already closing RfAs in a "conscientious manner"? ]] 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::: I'm sorry if I didn't make myself understood. My point is ''not'' that they're not conscientious (they are), but that perhaps routinely increasing the amount of work being put into closes, distinguishing good reasons for oppose or support from poor ones, listing editors who contributions are against the spirit of RfA (such as those who always vote support), might be an alternative to Kelly's proposal. I also recognise, you will see, that this would entail substantially more work and might require more bureaucrats. --] 15:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: Angela, I certainly do not believe that the bureaucrats are acting unconscientiously. Rather, I think the current structure of RfA itself engenders harm to Misplaced Pages, and that bureaucrats should refuse to participate in it in order to put an end to that harm. ] (]) 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's consensus (that word again!) that there are times RfA isn't working smoothly, though no consensus at all about how to improve it. But this suggestion is not a solution to anything. We have a pending RfA in which the <s>votes</s> expressions of opinion are running something like 90 to 0. Are you suggesting that the closing 'crat should refuse to promote, in a clear case where RfA worked fine, to draw attention to the fact that in other cases it doesn't? Sounds highly counter-productive, and a bit like a ] situation to me. ] 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

: I think the suggestion is that ''all'' promotions should be suspended. --] 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::Kelly's suggestion was that the bureaucrats "refrain from promoting new administrators" and "suspend promotions" until the RfA process is revised, to "force the community" to come up with a new process. If that is done, then even the uncontroversial promotions in cases where there's no dispute about application of the RfA process at all will be held up. I still don't see the value to that. ] 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:Many of the "uncontroversial" candidates are uncontroversial because nobody asks the right questions. We've had uncontroversial candidates who turned out to be bad admins, after all, and a lot of people who make admin these days do so because they've deliberately gamed the system in order to become admins. ] (]) 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::If the right questions aren't being asked, you are as free to ask a question or present a comment as anyone else. ] 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::: The value is obvious. Produce a non-broken process. --] 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'crats are doing the best that they can and are attempted to act in a manner that is both professional and effective. If a process is screwed up, it doesn't mean the 'crats are. They are human beings capable of seeing beyond simple numbers or a list of names. They may mess up, but everyone does. I think the 'crats should be and can be trusted in the vast majority of circumstances. ]] 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, closing the RFA is not the best solution. I agree with you that the RFA has become a mess, and the quality of admins in the past are much better than some of the present day ones. So why is this happening? I have a few thoughts: Well, power corrupts and as the size of admins increases it's becoming more of a cabal and we find many users shooting down valid candidates on really flimsy reasons. I've noticed that the RFAs that have the highest chances of passing are the ones which have been nominated by well known wikipedians. Calling and end to the process without proposed solutions is certainly not the best way to move ahead. Why don't you give 'crats the mandate some more elbow room in subjectivity? Either way if we go ahead (as Splash has put it above), we're accused of being partial or not considering 'legitimate' concerns. My concerns are mainly the fact that if just *one* well known user objects, you're going to get a whole army of mechanical "nodders" agreeing with the editor, without going in the reasons why the candidate may have acted in that fashion and the opposer could be wrong. What do we do then? I know that the candidate may have just got a little hot one incident, so can it be integrated for all instances in the future? I certainly don't feel so, but if we do promote, there are accusations of us having ulterior motives and what not. Please do suggest some alternatives before calling for a suspended session. ] ] 18:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:Here’s an alternative that makes sense to me. Most of the comments/concerns are centered around voting and unreasonable oppose rational, and many are suggesting giving Bureaucrats more discretionary power. Instead of turning RFA off, why don’t we try something like for the next 5 nominations? See what happens. ] 18:27, 10 September 2006 (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 02:41:03 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: