→Request for consideration: general practice? |
→Request for consideration: attempted Big Brother humor |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:::Either this is hugely ironic or Dweller's forgotten to take his tablets... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::Either this is hugely ironic or Dweller's forgotten to take his tablets... [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::: Yes, let's do make them all RFAs a week, just for the fun of it ... I'm sure Dweller hasn't forgotten his tablets, but I'm not so sure about Wifione :) Maybe over the next few hours, I'll figure out what Wifione is getting at. Right now, we have a clearly failing RFA and no rationale provided for extending it. Apparently it has something to do with Cirt, presumably the fact that many editors will go the opposite direction of Cirt on principle, but I have no clue what point Wifione is trying to make. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::: Yes, let's do make them all RFAs a week, just for the fun of it ... I'm sure Dweller hasn't forgotten his tablets, but I'm not so sure about Wifione :) Maybe over the next few hours, I'll figure out what Wifione is getting at. Right now, we have a clearly failing RFA and no rationale provided for extending it. Apparently it has something to do with Cirt, presumably the fact that many editors will go the opposite direction of Cirt on principle, but I have no clue what point Wifione is trying to make. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::And the weekly chocolate ration has been increased from 30g to 20g. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Outside of the particulars and motivations of this request, the idea that borderline or swinging RfAs ought generally be extended and re-advertised might be worth debating in light of [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Lear's_Fool#On_extension|the Lear's Fool case]]. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 16:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Outside of the particulars and motivations of this request, the idea that borderline or swinging RfAs ought generally be extended and re-advertised might be worth debating in light of [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Lear's_Fool#On_extension|the Lear's Fool case]]. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 16:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:39, 20 January 2011
|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.
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.
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
It is 00:36:20 on June 8, 2024, according to the server's time and date. |
Non-crat closes at CHU
There are some cases at CHU that are quite obviously not going to be done, whether it's because the request was withdrawn explicitly (see here for an example) or implicitly (by posting another request) or because it's not possible. It would be easy enough for clerks to close these (see my example above) but it would seem the bot won't archive the request unless it's closed by a bureaucrat (see this diff). Personally, I think that there shouldn't be a problem with clerks closing requests - as well, a list of "trusted" users could be maintained of non-crats who can close a request only as {{Not done}} to stop random users from closing things. Xeno and NihonJoe have both said they would have no problem with it, but as stated by NihonJoe there may be things to take care of before it can be done, and also, gaining consensus from multiple Bureaucrats would probably be a good idea before it's implemented. demize (t · c) 19:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- It may make sense to just have the bot act on any 'notdone' - we haven't maintained or found a need for a formal list of clerks in recent times. –xenotalk 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- But that would allow the abuse mentioned by Demize above. Maybe it could act only if the template is placed by anyone in a manually-assigned usergroup (reviewer, rollbacker, account creator, sysop etc.), since we can assume that those people are probably trusted enough not to misuse the bot's archiving. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- That would work. Also, xeno, as far as I know I'm the only clerk active right now (:p), and that would mean that before I came around there was a period with none, so there wasn't really any use for a list. But if there were a list, it might attract more people to clerk (and they'd take away my job! :P). Either a list or any manually-assigned usergroup that requires a level of trust to assign would work, it's up to User:Chris G though. demize (t · c) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- But that would allow the abuse mentioned by Demize above. Maybe it could act only if the template is placed by anyone in a manually-assigned usergroup (reviewer, rollbacker, account creator, sysop etc.), since we can assume that those people are probably trusted enough not to misuse the bot's archiving. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some input from the bot writer/maintainer might be useful here too, I'll leave a note on his talkpage. demize (t · c) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally I've never particularly liked the requirement that the bot will only archive requests closed by a bureaucrat, however that is what VoABot did (the bot that archived before my bot replaced it) and the consensus at the time of approval seemed to be that the bot should follow that requirement. Anyway it would be fairly easy to remove that requirement or have a list of approved "clerks", it just depends on what you guys want. Also regarding consolidation, is there really a need or is that just looking for a problem that needs solving (on the other hand I'm not opposed to it, just as long as it's my bot that takes over ;) )? --Chris 03:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- re Consolidation: was just a thought; seemed inefficient to have 3 bots doing what could be done by 1, but otherwise the current setup has been working fine. –xenotalk 04:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think a list of approved clerks would be the best idea, it would need to be a page editable by 'crats to work as well as it could though. That way, a 'crat can add users that have actively been helping and that show they understand the basic policy behind renaming. I think we should get input from NihonJoe at the least though, since he's the most active bureaucrat at CHUS. In the end, I think xeno and NihonJoe should agree on something, with the help of others who offer their input. demize (t · c) 04:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just asked Anomie if AnomieBOT only acts on crat's dones/notdones.
If it will act on anyone's, I'd say just let Chris G Bot 3 do the same. If we ever run into abuse, it can be dealt with at that time (the page is fairly well-watched, and there's a 12 and 36 hour gap for done and notdone (respectively) to be archived. Some relevant discussion on this subject: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 6#Clerks at WP:CHU, Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#Trusting the clerks to mark notdone on blocked users, Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Archive 3#Request for clarification. Note it seems Chris G bot already has a function to let people use notdone: User:Chris G Bot 3/trustedusers.js. –xenotalk 17:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just asked Anomie if AnomieBOT only acts on crat's dones/notdones.
As I explained in this thread I have always preferred that only bureaucrats tag requests as {{done}} or {{not done}}. I think if a request is made to a bureaucrat, the user is entitled to have a bureaucrat determine its outcome (for the same reason, I don't think non-admins should decline unblock requests). A rename request might be "withdrawn" due to incorrect advice by a clerk - which may not be picked up if the same clerk then tags it as {{not done}}. In general, I think I would spend at least as much (if not more) time reviewing and correcting taggings by clerks than just doing the tagging myself. If having the tags added by others won't save bureaucrat time, there's no real need for it. This is a non-urgent wiki process and, in this example, I hardly think a gap of a few hours counts as the bureaucrats having "all disappeared". A little patience please! That said, given than I now have little involvement in the process, it shouldn't be up to me. If those crats who now perform most renames would find it helpful for clerks to tag requests as {{done}} or {{not done}}, they can invite them to do so.
I am however strongly against the idea of appointing clerks. It seems to me something that goes completely against the ethos of a wiki and to be avoided where possible. Even if the role is expanded, I think anyone who wishes to act as a clerk can be free to do so. If someone's contributions to the page are tending to be unhelpful, it won't be long before a bureaucrat asks them to stop helping out. I don't think we should be creating new "positions". WJBscribe (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- With similar reservations – and respect for the judgment of the bureaucrats who are currently most active – I also object to this idea. I gave a more detailed account of my reasons here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree with WJB and AD's reasoning. I understand the urge to help, but many people seeking renames are inexperienced and adding more layers of templates and reviews with additional people involved probably won't help them. Also, it isn't like there is any backlog at CHU needing help. MBisanz talk 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with MBisanz; specifically, since there's no backlog it's probably just more straight forward for new and confused users if their requests are tagged by a bureaucrat. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can see how it might become confusing with too many people doing things on the page, especially since there's no real backlog there. I'm fine keeping things status quo for now, too. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with MBisanz; specifically, since there's no backlog it's probably just more straight forward for new and confused users if their requests are tagged by a bureaucrat. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I say we call this issue resolved. If there is ever a need for clerks, then they can be added to that page (User:Chris G Bot 3/trustedusers.js), but the general consensus seems to be that there is currently no need and it would be confusing for clerks to mark requests done/not done. demize (t · c) 01:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not to say we don't appreciate all the hard work the clerks do - we do =) Cheers, –xenotalk 02:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto what xeno wrote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Adminbot approved (User:AWBCPBot)
- AWBCPBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot
In my capacity as a BAG member, I've approved an adminbot that will maintain a single fully-protected page. The discussion was advertised at WT:RFA and the talk page of the aforementioned page and has been open for just under a week without any objections. The bot is operated by administrator Kingpin13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and will require the bot flag and administrator rights (set). –xenotalk 14:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For your information, a request for recall of User:Looie496 has been initiated, if it passes then Looie496 may either voluntarily resign as an administrator, or alternatively run through a request for adminship. Please see User:Looie496/Recall for further details of the process, as well as the recall request itself. Administrators in good standing may support the recall at that page. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Request for consideration
I had previously decided to email this request to avoid unnecessary comments, but thought against it as perhaps the community should be allowed to weigh in on this. I !voted oppose at GiantSnowman's RfA. Yet, I have seen with interest that in the past two days, the number of supporters is growing for GiantSnowman. When Cirt !voted oppose, there were 49 supporting and 32 opposing editors, in general. Currently, there are 59 supporting editors, and the number of opposing editors remains unchanged. At the danger of this being seen as crossing the line into bureaucrat territory, I still wished to request the closing bureaucrat that in case GiantSnowman's RfA, at the point of closing, is failing the mark minimally, the RfA be extended by a reasonable period, as the crats may determine. My apologies in advance if this is not the appropriate way to request this. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if we should consider extending all RfAs to a week? --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Err? –xenotalk 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Either this is hugely ironic or Dweller's forgotten to take his tablets... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, let's do make them all RFAs a week, just for the fun of it ... I'm sure Dweller hasn't forgotten his tablets, but I'm not so sure about Wifione :) Maybe over the next few hours, I'll figure out what Wifione is getting at. Right now, we have a clearly failing RFA and no rationale provided for extending it. Apparently it has something to do with Cirt, presumably the fact that many editors will go the opposite direction of Cirt on principle, but I have no clue what point Wifione is trying to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Either this is hugely ironic or Dweller's forgotten to take his tablets... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And the weekly chocolate ration has been increased from 30g to 20g. Useight (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Err? –xenotalk 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Outside of the particulars and motivations of this request, the idea that borderline or swinging RfAs ought generally be extended and re-advertised might be worth debating in light of the Lear's Fool case. Skomorokh 16:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)