Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:20, 8 June 2010

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 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:BN
• WP:BNB

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.

It is 02:14:46 on December 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

Impressive

I've been out of the loop for a while now, but after checking on CHU and hanging around RfA for the day, I must say that the bureaucrats are doing an excellent job lately of keeping the backlogs in check. Keep it up and thanks for all your hard work. Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from all of us, but I don't do much CHU, mostly RFA/B stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, yup. Thanks for the kudos. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The other (big bullying meanie) 'crats gobble up the flashy RfA/B's, so I end up doing mainly usurps :) -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I never do usurps, so at least someone is doing them. That whole page is confusing to me, so I just let those who know it handle it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I generally don't do crap these days. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gulp, I've been "writing articles" lately too. Ouch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles all the way! (I do the odd photo too). Secretlondon (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the benefit to being a Commons 'crat. There are usually a couple RfAs every week, and only a couple active 'crats to compete against! Juliancolton (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I mostly upload and do gnomish things over on commons, so I don't know that I'd pass as an admin there. Otherwise, I might run. It would be useful in some instances such as blatant co

If you edited steadily for a couple months, I think you would have no problem passing. Juliancolton (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan - request for return of sysop flag

I resigned in March 2010 to help myself deal with some RL issues. As far as I know, no clouds were involved (except the ones I'd like to go away and let some summer in, thank you very much). As those issues have eased, and I've found that my attempt to ratchet down my editing level hasn't worked as well as I hoped, I'd like to restore the sysop flag, so I don't have to deal with people telling me "you're still an admin, you just don't have the buttons" -- I'd rather be fully one or fully the other. :-) Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there's no obstacle to resysopping here of which I'm aware. Live long and prosper. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems here either, but one would like the consensus of at least one more 'crat, as we tend to do these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one). Resysopp'im! –xeno 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If this thread goes on long enough (looks to top of page, 5 hours or so to go) and your RfB stays at the 95% level, maybe you'll be allowed to do the honours, Xeno... Bencherlite 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, no rush here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Resysop him immediately, he's shirked his responsibilities for long enough! =) –xeno 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Deskana (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved interwiki bots

Unapproved interwiki bot with over 7000 edits. β 01:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and operator notified. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking of giving it a flag and avoiding the paperwork since its already got 7k edits and been active for 6+ months. β 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked BAG. They said it should be blocked--specifically your mentor MBisanz. So I did. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

found another: TjBot (talk · contribs) β 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. MBisanz 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Dinamik-bot a global bot? Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Dinamik-bot is and should be alright per WP:GLOBALBOTS. The other two aren't. Amalthea 09:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We need clarification on that since MBisanz voted for that and he's the one that said Dinamik should be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

iirc, global bots are not able to run on enwiki if they are not explicitely approved. Enwiki opted out of the global bot process. (X! · talk)  · @492  ·  10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Global bots are only allowed on en.wiki for interwiki linking; so strictly interwiki linking is fine, but cosmetic changes should be disabled unless they also have local approval for that. –xeno 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Until this gets sorted out more, as there seems to be clear confusion over the issue, I've unblocked Dinamik-bot for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any particular confusion per se - more of an issue that our local global bot policy is probably not very well-known. Indeed, I blocked a globally-approved interwiki bot once in the past before someone pointed the above link out to me. –xeno 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot_policy#Restrictions_on_specific_tasks also says that they are meant to follow local requirements, which ones should they? since one of ours is that bots are to get approval, so someone might want to expand that so its a tad clearer on what it means. Peachey88 02:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweak as desired. –xeno 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

and another: JackieBot (talk · contribs)} β 04:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Message left for operator at ru.wiki . I don't think there's a particularly pressing need to block it unless it starts running amok, or they don't comply. –xeno 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, proper adherence to our bot policies is important, and anyone running a bot (locally or globally or in any other fashion) should be expected to comply. Nonetheless, conspicuously missing from this conversation is any discussion of whether there is any problem with the contributions from these bots. Is there? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Brad, that's like saying "you're banned but if you behave you can evade your ban". Same basic argument. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've added a "globalbot" switch to the status parameter of {{bot}} that provoides a brief explanation and links and boldly set the status for User:Dinamik-bot as such. –xeno 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the status of the other two bots mentioned herein? Do they qualify? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not unless they appear at Special:GlobalUsers/Global bot. They can apply for speedy approval at WP:BRFA if they don't want to apply for global bot permission at m:Bot policy#Global bots. –xeno 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno looks right, I had forgotten about the exception for interwiki bots and thought we still required speedy local approval. My bad. MBisanz 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We all goof. Tks to Xeno for taking care of these three bots. Seems two do in fact need approval here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bersibot (talk · contribs)
• Ebrambot (talk · contribs)

can be added to the list. β 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the above two bots, not knowing of the above conversation about global bots and what-not. If I made a mistake in the blocks, I will not oppose unblocking. –MuZemike 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Please remember to disable autoblock when blocking bots for simply being unapproved; also block notes should be left locally and you might also consider contacting the operators at their home wiki (though I've done this already). –xeno 13:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculation be ended!

Yes, it's finally happening. The speculation is ended. Please return my admin and crat tools, after I a month ago. (X! · talk)  · @616  ·  13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry X!, he beat me to it =p –xeno 14:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

;-) Ya snooze, ya lose! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at a clear sky, seeing if any cloud in sight could be found ;p –xeno 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, X!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a 'crat-related question at the Help Desk...

...here. I always get my renaming venues muddled up, so could someone oblige? Thanks, Bencherlite 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename

I wish to be renamed to "s0aasdf2sf" in order to vanish from Misplaced Pages. I am not going to start fresh under a new identity. I am simply exercising my right to leave Misplaced Pages.

Thanks

TechOutsider 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)TechOutsider

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages bureaucratship